Uh oh, Ashton, it looks like Apple might have a thing or two to say about that
jailbroken iPhone of yours. Every three years the Copyright Office asks for proposed exemptions to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act's rules against breaking access protections, and this time around the lovable scamps at the Electronic Frontier Foundation have asked that jailbreaking phones -- like, yes, the iPhone -- be classified as one of those exceptions. As you might have guessed, Apple's response to the EFF isn't exactly supportive of the idea: it says the proposed rule will "destroy the technological protection of Apple's key copyrighted computer programs in the iPhone device itself and of copyrighted content owned by Apple that plays on the iPhone." Both sides have filed long briefs supporting their positions with extremely detailed legal arguments, but the main takeaways are that the EFF thinks that allowing jailbreaking will result in more apps and innovation, and Apple points out that the App Store is already hugely successful and that jailbroken phones are technically running unauthorized modifications of Apple's copyrighted iPhone code that allows them to run
pirated applications. Interestingly, Apple's
convoluted App Store approval process is the center of a lot of discussion, and Apple is totally disengeniuous about it, saying there's no "duplication of functionality" rule and as proof claims to have allowed "
multiple general web browsers... and multiple
mail programs." Note to the Copyright Office: if you believe this we have a very nice bridge to sell you.
Now, let's be clear: while we're definitely hoping the EFF pulls this one out, the worst thing that can result of all this is the status quo -- Apple isn't asking for jailbreaking to specifically be ruled illegal, it's just asking that it
not be specifically ruled
legal. If that sounds like a fuzzy distinction, well, it is, but that's the sort of gray area that keeps everyone else out of court for the time being. We'll find out more in the spring, when the Copyright Office holds hearings -- final rulings are due in October.
Read - EFF page on the jailbreaking debate
Read - EFF's brief (PDF)
Read - Apple's reply (PDF)
Read - EFF's second brief (PDF)
posted February 13th 2009 12:52PM
Ohhhh, I like expert mode
a blurry einstein?!
Clearly Simple Mode is a cut above Expert. Ch-ch-ch-ch-ch
I dont really give a rats a$$ if they jailbrake or not. Apple still gets their $600 per phone no matter what. Come on 1 billion apps sold n counting.,its a very smart percentage that jailbrake n they can still buy apple apps. If i was apple i would be glad to hear that every single iphone sold would immediately be jailbroken outta the box ,this way i would void every single warranty due to malfunctions. Apple should be thanking jailbreakers for forcing people to pay full price for iphone replacements when under warranty.$600.I was one of those suckers whose iphone crapped out after 3 months, when i went in to replace under warranty ,they laughed at me n forced me to pay full $600 or pay $200 early cancellation fee wouldve also been applicable. I had no choice n had to drop $600 for iphone 3g after only having it for 3 month. I learned my lesson.
I dont really give a rats a$$ if they jailbrake or not. Apple still gets their $600 per phone no matter what. Come on 1 billion apps sold n counting.,its a very smart percentage that jailbrake n they can still buy apple apps. If i was apple i would be glad to hear that every single iphone sold would immediately be jailbroken outta the box ,this way i would void every single warranty due to malfunctions. Apple should be thanking jailbreakers for forcing people to pay full price for iphone replacements when under warranty.$600.I was one of those suckers whose iphone crapped out after 3 months, when i went in to replace under warranty ,they laughed at me n forced me to pay full $600 or pay $200 early cancellation fee wouldve also been applicable. I had no choice n had to drop $600 for iphone 3g after only having it for 3 month. I learned my lesson.
oh man all these hidden Jasons are cracking me up
What the hell is up with them?
Tim,..The Friday The 13th remake movie is out today,..on Friday the 13th!
simple mode is also know as machete mode
The EFF is my hero.
I'm not sure what makes me sleep better at night, having my tonsils out at 33 or the EFF.
Mine too... normally.
But until Apple finds a way to make app piracy into something that at least requires some level of non-trivial human effort, I'd rather Apple keeps foiling the jail-breakers. Crackulous is... problematic.
There should be no exceptions here. Apple is allowed to set rules and limitations for their products and software. If you don't like them, then DONT USE THEM. If you jailbrake your phone it is 100% at your own risk, and there is no reason Apple should support it. And there is no reason for that to change.
Fanb... oops.. :P
BTW, it's "jailbreak," NOT jailbrake. Why would you want to brake a jail anyway..
Jailbreaking effects software only, not the hardware, so it's reasonable to expect Apple to support the hardware on a jailbroken iPhone. Of course, either you or they can just restore the thing so it has the original iPhone software, which Apple has to support.
I think Apple is doing this because they want to prevent software piracy of the apps on their appstore, cause it might kill one of their cash cows. Crackulous just recently gave users the ability to remove AppStore app's DRM, and Apple may intend to fight this in the future. If jailbreaking is legal, it's going to be a lot harder for Apple to fight.
Whatever, I don't want to pirate AppStore apps anyways. Most of the best software is available on Cydia.
Because that damned jail is speeding, that's why!
So, when I buy something with my money it doesn't become my property? Is that what you're saying here? The people jailbreaking their phones aren't distributing modified versions of the OS, so they're not doing anything other than using their property in ways not initially intended by the manufacturer. I see no problem in filling obvious gaps in functionality by breaking some shit.
Let's play reducto ad absurdum here. If I purchase a loaf of 'sandwich sliced' bread and make french toast with it, should I be punished? If, in 1993, I took a flannel shirt and tied it about my midsection, forming a quasi-kilt, is that a transgression against anything other than style?
Piss and moan about the EULA if you wish (unless you're in Germany, then pound sand), but I refuse to see how a company can dictate the usage of its product if the product allows itself to be modified in ways that change functionality, and if that modification is performed by owners on their own property.
Shirt-kilts still rule.
Why do you want your devices to be limited?
I support the EFF cause because I want to use my device in the way that I want to. I know the implications of jailbreaking my device (bricking it) and Im willing to risk this. However, when my device decides to crap out on me, I am not going to Apple and say they should warrant my device. Apple wants to make the whole jailbreaking scene illegal. If the user knows they are stepping out of the bounds of what is going to warranted and what isnt, why shouldnt they be allowed to?
It is much like a car. If I want to put a twin turbo and give my car some NOS right after I buy it, should it be illegal? I obviously know the implications of this. Its pretty much the same deal here. Why shouldnt I be allowed to modify my phone the way I want it to be but my car on the other hand cant? In both situations warranties will be voided immediately, however does mean it should be illegal?
@Deuche ex Machina: Engadget pointe out an important distinction - Apple isn't trying to make jailbreaking illegal, it just doesn't want it to become legal.
You're right, if I buy a device I should be able to do whatever I want with it, including jailbreaking it. However, company that produced the device is within its rights to refuse any support of the device once you do that. If you buy sandwich sliced bread and make toast out of it you can't then go to the bread company and complain about dissatisfaction with their product because it doesn't taste like sandwich sliced bread, no can you?
Here's the point though - if jailbreaking is legal then, I think, Apple would have to provide support to those devices, and that's why I think they're trying to prevent its legalization.
@wrabbit
"Apple isn't trying to make jailbreaking illegal, it just doesn't want it to become legal."
Did that even make sense to you when you typed that out? There are no grey areas in the law. There is nothing called partially legal if thats what you were thinking of. If it isnt legal, it is illegal.
they ARE fighting for jailbreaking to be illegal. Nobody is fighting for it to be legal. If you read (which I highly doubt) the documents that this story links to, it explicitly states Apple is "opposed" to jailbreaking. That is the whole battle in court. By jailbreaking a device you are circumventing securities within the device thus breaking the law (via DMCA act).
"So, when I buy something with my money it doesn't become my property?"
I depends on what you're paying for. You may be paying to own the hardware outright, but you may only be paying for a LICENSE to use the software. That license can have any number of restrictions. If the jailbreaking process just modifies the existing software, you may well be violating that license.
Blizzard just has just recently won some lawsuits against a company that was selling bot software for World of Warcraft. They are being awarded damages because a company deliberately circumvented Blizzard's attempts to ensure the integrity of their software. In fact, the owner of the company that released the bot software has even been found personally liable. Blizzard's case was based on the DMCA.
It's a dangerous precedent, and sounds pretty similar to software mods that allow unintended operation of the iPhone's software.
Well, when Apple cuts the bullshit and starts giving us basic functionality like MMS, video recording, cut + paste, and word processing then there wouldn't be such a demand for hacking. But until then, hack that motherfucker away!
I agree that the iPhone needs those features, and if you want to hack it to get those features then fine, but dont expect Apple to Support it, and don't try force Apple to "allow" a violation of its EUA just because you want to mess with their device.
Apple makes the iphone the way it is, and upgrades it as it does. If you dont like it, then dont get one. Its no different then adding a supercharger to your stock car. Dont expect the manufacturer to Support it, its 100% at your own risk, and you cant force the manufacturer to do what YOU want. You made the choice to buy it.
eMax, the difference is the car manufacturer doesn't go out of its way to brick your car just because you've made the modification
Jailbroken iPhones work just fine until Apple releases updates that deliberately serve to brick the devices
Whilst I haven't jailbroken my iPod touch I should be free to do so if I want, without Apple telling me that the device I paid money to own is still their plaything which they can render inoperable just because I dared to do something they didn't like.
Or better yet, buy one of the many devices that already do these things and get off Apple's nuts. Why would they bother developing this stuff if people are clearly willing to shell out for the devices without them? Otherwise they will keep holding back key features so people upgrade once a year. It's the same model they have been using for years.
Im with mr lizard on this one
emax, people who jailbreak their iphones *don't* expect apple to support them
but neither should they fear that apple will write an update with no other purpose than to kill jailbroken iphones
its the user's own risk if a general software update happens to cause complications with the jailbroken phone
but that's not the problem. the problem is apple targeting jailbroken iphones, and deliberately coding an update designed to break them
@emax
"Its no different then adding a supercharger to your stock car. "
It's completely different from this. If I added a supercharger to my Tuscon, it would very likely void my warranty (entirely or some portion of it). It would not be illegal for me to do this, or for someone to sell me a supercharger, or for me to do anything other than drive wrecklessly or greater than the speed limit.
Meanwhile, this DMCA exclusion list is precisely about whether jailbreaking should be illegal under the DMCA or not.
yeah jailbroken phones should be allowed
here's my thought. yes Jailbreaking and unlocking are DMCA violations because only Apple has the right to change the code. the whole reverse engineering thing is a sham of a defense. and that is likely what the courts will say as well. perhaps if there was no apps store and legal way to create apps they would feel different. but there is and I think that will be a factor in Apple winning this.
that said, I think Apple is wasting time and money trying to stop it. Get the legal call to support the notion that such games can be viewed as a violation of various contracts and apple can continue to not service and support those that choose to do these tricks and no one can sue etc. but to try to shut it down is going to go no where just like torrents are still out there, dvd rippers are still out there etc.
instead focus on providing folks with the things that they are turning to jailbreaking for. like the video. qik proves to us that the issue isn't hardware but software and perhaps ATT not wanting to have folks sucking up bandwidth. deal with those issues and some of the breakers won't do it because that's what they were looking for. get MMS in the system, and some of the breakers won't have to. and so on.
Without the babble, Apple is asking that people no longer legally control physical devices they own. So what that Apple doesn't have any right to the energy you paid for to run the thing. If the software dies, the hardware dies, too.
The really scary part is that this is the exact view a lot of misinformed computer users have, which has led to the bizarre misconception that computers get slower over time.
You sound like those christians who are complaining that the hate-crimes legislation that was up for a vote was going to stifle their freedom of speech.
Apple is only looking at its own cash register. Never mind that they're getting some good cash off the phone itself. But, how about a cut of the monthly contracts it gets from AT&T?
I dont really give a rats a$$ if they jailbrake or not. Apple still gets their $600 per phone no matter what. Come on 1 billion apps sold n counting.,its a very smart percentage that jailbrake n they can still buy apple apps. If i was apple i would be glad to hear that every single iphone sold would immediately be jailbroken outta the box ,this way i would void every single warranty due to malfunctions. Apple should be thanking jailbreakers for forcing people to pay full price for iphone replacements when under warranty.$600.I was one of those suckers whose jailbroken iphone crapped out after 3 months, when i went in to replace under warranty they laughed at me n forced me to pay full $600 or pay $200 early cancellation fee ,wouldve also been applicable. I had no choice n had to drop $600 for iphone 3g after only having it for 3 month. I learned my lesson. i felt like such a fool as genius bar guys laughed at me,.
Now it's CLEAR!
Apple recently started approving apps with "duplicate functionality" that were in the dustbin for several months.
I think they realized this would put a damper on their defense of this action, so they decided to approve apps with duplicate functionality.
Developers, go for it! Now, Apple will have to answer to the call of the EFF if they don't approve those apps!
make a phone that is worth keeping stock and you won't have this problem apple. Almost a year and still not copy paste? f*ck you, I'll continue to jailbreak.
I just want everyone to know that unlocking is not a violation of the DMCA. In fact, that is in the DMCA. Also, at the moment, jailbreaking and the way it works is not illegal. The Dev Teams make sure to not distribute any apple code so that the only thing that happens is that the user legally modifies his/her devices code. The EFF is doing a great thing in trying to add this exception into the DMCA, because there is simply nothing wrong with this. I like that Apple is simply trying to block this though. I would love the exception, it would clear so many things up and keep people from hating on the jailbreak community. However, if it fails, Apple is not asking for jailbreaking to become illegal, becuase they know that there is no grounds for that. Until jailbreakers break copyright law (via distribution, etc.), they are perfectly in the right.
What is being fought in court is NOT about copyright issues. It is not about how the Dev Team is distributing or taking code from Apple. That is not the case at all. What is going down in court is what the DMCA protects. The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent protection on a given platform. And like you said the EFF wants to make the jailbreaking scene an exception to the rule. Much like what the DMCA laws did to DVD ripping software. If Apple really wanted to, they could file a big fat lawsuit to the dev team and shut the whole thing down.
Apple has indeed stated their stance on this issue. They do NOT want jailbreaking to be listed as a exception in the DMCA and they even said in their statements (read the files attached to the story) that they are "opposed" to jailbreaking. If the iPhone is not listed as an exception, than it is not legal. Apple is INDEED trying to make jailbreaking an iPhone illegal. This can cause the whole jailbreaking scene to cease to exist once the rulings are passed, since there is still much ambiguity to the law. However with a definitive answer from the courts this can cause a big problem to the jailbreaking scene.
I would rather they fix the laws that allow the carriers to force you to buy service plans you don't want in order get the phone you do want. I don't talk on the phone much, but I would buy an iPhone in a heart beat if I could get one without a voice plan.
You can get one without a voice plan, it's called an iPod touch!
Because the iPod touch has a 3G radio...
what are you talking about? you can goto any store and buy any phone you want without a contract or voice plan. however you just have to pay the full price with no subsidy
How dare you use that piece of electronics that you bought with your own money in whichever way you see fit, you nefarious hax0rz.
can't apple easily stop jailbroken phones? I think an easy way to stop unlocks, would be if apple made the iPhone have it's own sim. That would stop it.
Also to stop jailbreaking, put a better drm on cracked apps. That's all apple really cares about
Jailbreaks nowadays work by using patching the iPhone bootloader in order for it to accept hacked firmware. Apple can't upgrade the bootloader through iTunes (if they can, they haven't done it) and so as a result, jailbroken phones roam free. However, In order to tackle the jailbreaks, Apple release a new version of bootloader with every new model of device.
An iPhone specific sim would waste money and time tbh.
Anyone else think Apple needs to just shut up and stop? I really am tired of all the Apple threats and complaints about the things people do on the products they own. When a company is on one side of the fence and the entire purchasing public is against them on the other side... it's time for the company to just give in. How long did it take for the SDK? Now multiply that by 10 and that's how long until Apple gives up their stupid protection act.
Agreed.
Ummm...
The ENTIRE purchasing public isn't on the opposite side of the fence from Apple.
I myself think this is rather silly, and Apple can argue that they don't want to take care of people who void their warranties in this way if they want too. Just like Microsoft doesn't have to repair Xboxes with modchips, and Canon doesn't have to honor the warranty of this printer if I use it to smash someone's head in.
If Psystar and the EFF both 'win', I'm going to be very happy.
meh i dont know how you can call the app store a 'success' .... i guess in terms of profitability definitely ... but when it is 99% full of utterly garbage and useless 'apps', only apple would call that a good thing.
Then again the Wii and DS are considered a success too :P
ps.. Where's the Jailbait? Was I tricked????
You are all missing the bigger issue here...
When am I going to stop being considered a criminal for ripping and re-encoding my DVDs so I can waste money on bigger HDDs so I can stream the movies I purchased to my home theater?