Slashdot Mirror


Apple Claims That Jail-Breaking Is Illegal

rmav writes "Apple has finally made a statement about jail-breaking. They try to sell the idea that it is a copyright infringement and DMCA violation. This, despite the fact (as the linked article states) that courts have ruled that copying software while reverse engineering is a fair use when done for purposes of fostering interoperability with independently created software. I cannot help but think that the recent flood of iPhone cracked applications is responsible for this. Before that, Apple was quietly ignoring the jailbreak scene. Now, I suppose that in the future we may only install extra applications on our iPhones as ad hoc installs using the SDK, and if we want turn-by-turn directions, tethering, and the like, we have to compile these apps by ourselves? Maybe we should go and download the cydia source code and see what we can do with it."

42 of 610 comments (clear)

  1. Someone call the wambulance by mc1138 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People never get up in arms about something till it effects them personally. What a load of crap apple.

    1. Re:Someone call the wambulance by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Personally, I hold those who gave Apple money personally responsible for this, and for any legal precedents that end up being set. Those lawyers didn't pay for themselves...

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    2. Re:Someone call the wambulance by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who do you buy your gasoline from?

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    3. Re:Someone call the wambulance by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who do you buy your gasoline from?

      I don't buy it. I bike, walk and use public transit.

      I bet you think you're clever though, with your pithy "Who do you buy your gasoline from" crap. Like living with ideals is an impossible and ridiculous thing that nobody really does and no one is really expected to do. Personally, I disassociate myself permanently from people and organizations I don't like. Won't work for em, won't buy from em, won't be involved, won't help make them strong. Hell, I didn't like what my government has been doing last number of years, so I stopped paying my taxes. Almost went to jail for that, but my hands are clean. I did not help them.

      When I can't do this, I acknowledge that I'm guilty of facilitating that which I despise. I recognize that the statement "I can't sever my involvement" is really "I'm not prepared to live in the fashion necessary to sever my involvement", and therefore I'm really just passing the hardship along to others. That makes me accountable to those others, and I may one day be called on to pay the piper, and if they come for me, it will be right and good and my own damned fault.

      It's called taking responsibility, maybe you ought to look into it.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    4. Re:Someone call the wambulance by cyn1c77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who do you buy your gasoline from?

      I don't buy it. I bike, walk and use public transit.

      .I bet you think you're clever though, with your pithy "Who do you buy your gasoline from" crap.

      Like living with ideals is an impossible and ridiculous thing that nobody really does and no one is really expected to do. Personally, I disassociate myself permanently from people and organizations I don't like. Won't work for em, won't buy from em, won't be involved, won't help make them strong. Hell, I didn't like what my government has been doing last number of years, so I stopped paying my taxes. Almost went to jail for that, but my hands are clean. I did not help them.

      ...therefore I'm really just passing the hardship along to others. That makes me accountable to those others, and I may one day be called on to pay the piper, and if they come for me, it will be right and good and my own damned fault.

      It's called taking responsibility, maybe you ought to look into it.

      What are you 12 years old? It sounds like you think you're the clever one. The world isn't black and white, it's shades of grey and sometimes you have to compromise and work with people and organizations you don't like to make progress.

      Just because you don't agree with elected government officials doesn't give you the right to stop paying taxes and push the cost onto other citizens under some retarded form of social protest. By living in the country, you are accepting the whole package, including agreeing paying taxes, regardless of who is elected.

      If you don't like it, legally fight for change or GTFO. You can't bury your head in the sand and just ignore things you don't like.

  2. Apple has a problem with this...... by 8127972 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ..... Because they could potentially make no money off the apps that are installed via jailbreaking. The rest of their reasons are just a smokescreen. Plain and simple.

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
    1. Re:Apple has a problem with this...... by PotatoFarmer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Alternately, they've finally realized that they can't win on technological grounds. Apple undoubtedly has some incredibly smart people working on plugging these holes as fast as they can, but at the end of the day it's a handful of folks vs. the rest of the world.

      If you can no longer innovate, then it's time to litigate.

    2. Re:Apple has a problem with this...... by cdrudge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Isn't the developer "license" something like $100? Plus, even with a $.99 app at 70%, Apple is still making ~$.30 for providing very little disk space and bandwidth to download it. It all adds up.

    3. Re:Apple has a problem with this...... by jlarocco · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The true motive isn't profit,

      That's just silly. When a giant corporation like Apple makes a decision, the underlying motive is profit. Always. Hell, even when they do stuff like donate money to charity, they do it because they expect the good will they'll get from doing it to be worth more than they're donating. That's just how big companies operate.

      I don't know why they're doing this, but I'm 100% certain they're doing it because they think it'll help them make more money.

  3. Apple Lock-in... by idontgno · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When marketing and Reality Distortion (tm) fails, call in the jackbooted thugs and sue the dissidents into submission.

    This, more than anything, is why Apple will never get one coin from my wallet.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    1. Re:Apple Lock-in... by characterZer0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He refuses to reward the company by purchasing their products because of their business tactics.

      Why does that preclude him from using code that Apple has given away?

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    2. Re:Apple Lock-in... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because it looks hypocritical to accept free stuff from the company while boycotting products.

      Only if you frame it that way. You can accept their freedom-friendly offerings while rejecting the anti-freedom products without a logical disconnect.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    3. Re:Apple Lock-in... by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So what is this apple code that you speak of?

      Be sure to name something that wasn't first created by someone else and then taken over by Apple later.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Apple Lock-in... by Vexorian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because it looks hypocritical to accept free stuff from the company while boycotting products.

      It may look hypocritical to you, but it isn't. It is also not our fault apple contributed a couple of FLOSS projects, every major company has done that, and I don't really think it should make them immune to criticism or boycott that's just ridiculous.

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
  4. And so it begins by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apple is the new Microsoft.

    1. Re:And so it begins by mc1138 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's been going like this for a while, just look at their business practices, the only thing they have going for them is that they're cool.

    2. Re:And so it begins by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apple has long been far WORSE than MS. The difference, of course, is that your life is extremely unlikely to be impacted by avoiding Apple's products.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:And so it begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Much of Apple's webkit enhancements are now proprietary and not submitted back. ⦠Further, the little they do submit back has given them leverage to control the package against public interest: I.e. Webkit rejected support for Ogg/Theora+Vorbis citing Apple. (Apple is a holder of MPEG LA licensed patents).

      Go check the gcc mailing list archives. No apple employee is permitted to come in contact with any GPLv3 licensed source code, they had to unsubscribe from GCC-patches mailing lists and have requests people not send patches to the main gcc mailing list.

      Apple is an exploiter of free software. Sometimes giving back is in their interest, but don't let that mislead you into thinking that they are a supporter.

    4. Re:And so it begins by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I still remember well the 'special' tools required to open a Mac's case.

    5. Re:And so it begins by maztuhblastah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Much of Apple's webkit enhancements are now proprietary and not submitted back

      Uh... what?

      Unless I'm mistaken, Dave Hyatt et. al. commit their changes to the publicly available WebKit source. The nightlies reflect the most recent version of WebKit.

      That wasn't the bit of your post that worried me though. The bit that worried me was this:

      Apple is an exploiter of free software. Sometimes giving back is in their interest, but don't let that mislead you into thinking that they are a supporter.

      See that alone indicates to me that you don't understand the concept of free software. Free software *can't* be exploited; that's its nature.

      What you (and others) want is for Apple to be forced into contributing towards features that you want in a manner that you approve of. Problem is, just as the GCC team doesn't have to bow to Apple's will when it comes to licensing or (previously) architecture focus, neither do they have to bow to yours w/ regards to Ogg support.

      And you know what? That's completely fine.

      The licenses for the software they use allow that. Now you can (and may) argue that the creators of the software shouldn't have chosen the licenses they did -- but that's a whole other argument. As it stands, Apple uses open source software in a manner completely in line with the license, exceeds their legal obligations, and pays multiple developers to work on code which is then released under an open source license. That sounds like support to me.

  5. Remember kids... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

    Just because something right doesn't mean it is legal.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Remember kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.

      Also, don't get caught.

  6. Playing devil's advocate here... by Dekortage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So Apple is doing this to protect its income for apps on the iPhone store. That also means it is protecting the income of application *developers* who sell through the iPhone store. Sure, they could try to sell apps only for jailbroken phones, but with all the gray areas around it legally (at least in the public's eye) and with the immense ease of use of the iPhone store (click and download right now!), they would much rather go Apple's route. Right? So Apple could be covering its ass, making sure they don't get attacked from iPhone developers who have trekked through the process to make "legit" apps but could be someday losing out to jailbroken competitors.

    Or else it's just about the money.

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    1. Re:Playing devil's advocate here... by Asic+Eng · · Score: 3, Insightful
      That also means it is protecting the income of application *developers* who sell through the iPhone store.

      However they are doing that at the expense of developers who don't sell or don't want to sell through the iPhone store, and at the expense of iPhone owners who are deprived of using the apps they want.

  7. Great... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yet another company taking the high road of suing their customers for profit!

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    1. Re:Great... by crmarvin42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, they said that they don't want to have Jailbreaking made legal. There is a big difference between not wanting the routine violation of your EULA made legal, and actually bothering to sue someone over it.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
  8. Re:Means nothing by morgauo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And if Apple Corp. was suing you with some strange interpretation of the DMCA today and the legal dream team it must be able to afford...

    What you be confident that the judge would sort it all out?

  9. An Honest Question by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't take this as flamebait... I am looking for honest answers:

    How is jailbreaking an iPhone different from removing DRM from a game?
    Am I wrong that Jailbreaking an iPhone simply allows you to use more applications on it?
    Is this not "Fair Use?"
    Is it true that there are free, non-stolen programs that wouldn't normally run on an iPhone without it being Jailbroken?
    Or is Jailbreaking simply a means to running pirated iPhone apps?

  10. Re:This is like bitching and moaning that... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, it's like Toyota suing you if you tried to make your own NOx kit for your own use.

    If monkeying around voids the warranty, fine. If monkeying around is outlawed...then only outlaws will have monkeys...er. um. wait.

  11. Re:This is like bitching and moaning that... by david_thornley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The normal demographic buys the iPhone, signs the AT&T contract, and shops at iTunes and the App Store, all as Steve Jobs intended when he created the world.* Only true geeks buy iPhones to crack them, and we know that Apple doesn't care that much about the true geek community. In other words, wrong answer on the motive, although the advice to not buy an iPhone if it isn't what you want is spot on (yeah, it's only common sense, but that's getting darn rare nowadays).

    Disclaimer: I have an iPhone, an iPod, and a Macintosh (it sits near one of the Ubuntu computers and gets used now and then). I do, however, generate my own reality distortion field, and don't use Jobs'.

    *Yeah, I know Steve didn't really do it, and God only thinks he's Steve Jobs.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  12. Apple's reality-distortion field by Simonetta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm a simple-minded person. So correct me if I am misunderstanding this situation:

      Apple makes a little plastic box with an LCD screen, a battery, and a circuit board and sells it to people in retail stores. And they claim that there is some kind of law that prohibits anyone who buys this little plastic box from opening it, determining how it works, and telling other people how to make it work better. Unless, of course, they pay Apple more money beyond the money that was paid for the little plastic box at the retail store.

        If this is a correct interpretation of the situation, then I have to agree that this company is delusional and that they will have a difficult time adjusting to 21st-century reality. These marketing major fantasies may have had some credibility in the 20th-century, but they are meaningless as the economy collapses.

        Reality is reality. If you are exploring the circuitry and firmware of a little plastic box and someone comes up to you and tells you that you are engaged in illegal activity by doing so, politely simply to ask them to go away and something constructive with their short time on Earth. If they persist or attempt to physically prevent you from your examinations of your property (your little plastic box and circuit board), then just shoot them. Don't even give it a second thought. There are far too many people in the world, and the fewer delusional assholes running around making trouble for the rest of us, the better. They won't be missed. When even Republicans are talking about economic collapse, then you know that It's a new world out there. Anything that you can do to make the world a better place for reality-based people to live in (such as sharing iPhone knowledge and applications), to more welcome you are in the new world of the post-20th century fantasies.

    1. Re:Apple's reality-distortion field by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, that's a very correct interpretation, because what it comes down to is the fact that that software itself, those 1s and 0s, are still physically represented.

      Personally, I think anything that can be copied really shouldn't be copyrightable, not necessarily because I like to pirate because you should be able to physically manipulate anything you buy in any way you see fit unless you give up that right through contract.

      I think we really need to start re-envisioning things for the modern world. A computer program isn't like a chair, an mp3 isn't like a television, and so on. I think part of the problem is that traditionally, people have built careers on what now can be represented in binary terms and easily transferred to other people, and hence people think they have a right to treating those 1s and 0s like they were chairs or televisions (scarce resources). Music won't end, and computer programs won't stop being written, people just need to adapt to the information age.

      Failure to do so will probably result in some kludge of laws that limit our freedom in ridiculous ways.

    2. Re:Apple's reality-distortion field by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And see that's where it gets a bit hazy, and questionable legally.

      I purchased a device that had software on it - or I could have purchased a CD, or even a file. That is, and always has, been purchasing a copy of the object. And THAT is what copyright law allows. It doesn't allow producers to sell "rights to use" something - it allows them the legal right to copy it, and then distribute it as they want (which usually means selling it). Beyond that though they lose control of how you use it. YOU certainly can't copy it again except where copyright law allows via fair use, but you already own that copy and can do with it as you please, without any regard to the original copyright holder because again, that copy has been sold.

      Again, copyright law was created primarily when books were what was talked about, and hence they make a perfect analogy. IT DOESN'T MATTER that after the publisher sees that people are ignoring their first page directive not now doodle the book. If they now decide to claim that "You're not really purchasing the book anymore. You're purchasing a license to use it and the pages are just a delivery method.", then they still have just as little (ie, none) capability of saying that you can't doodle in your book. Because when applied sensibly, the "only a license, not a copy" argument is complete and utter bullshit.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    3. Re:Apple's reality-distortion field by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Distributing an unauthorized derivative work may well represent a breach of copyright law."

      To me this sounds like "Don't take our software and change it, then give/sell it to others" which is not at all what homebrew development is about. As long as the jailbreak method doesn't distribute a cracked version of the firmware(software?) that the iPhone runs on, and only modifies the current installation, I see no reason that it would violate this clause. My 2cents.

    4. Re:Apple's reality-distortion field by db32 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit. Sorry, but it is. Did you know that if you form a business partnership without an agreement it defaults to a canned thing under the Uniform Partnership Act. So you can make your own agreement or default to the one the law already has. There are tons of contracts that you have to deal with on a daily basis that don't involve lawyers and negotiations and such. The only real requirement is that both parties agree, and read it or not, clicking agree means that you agree. If you recieve a service somewhere, such as a doctor, mechanic, etc, and then refuse to pay you can be sued for breach of contract because it was an implied contract.

      Business classes or Law classes would help you understand that sales neither walk nor quack and will go a long way to clarifying how businesses interact. Like it or not, they are selling licenses and it is perfectly legal. The only times it really has gotten beaten up is when they try to add illegal crap to the license (such as removing First Sale) and trying to prevent me from selling my license to someone else when I don't need it. (See AutoCad)

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    5. Re:Apple's reality-distortion field by MBGMorden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Software distribution is different than physical distribution of books. I'm not saying I approve of the current status quo, but until it gets changed, they distribute "Software Licenses" not "Software", and part of the License is a non-negotiable agreement as to what you can and cannot do with the software.

      You merely assume this to be the status quo - EULA's have traditionally stood up ratherly poorly in court, to the point of many of them being considered not much more than a "Please do this." from the company that holds no actual legal force. What a license COULD do is grant you additional rights over what standard copyright allows. Restricting what the purchaser can do is stepping out of bounds though.

      Ultimately, if you find their license to be too restrictive, they you need to decide if the restrictions outweigh your desire to have the device. If so, then purchase a different phone with different restrictions. If enough people agree with you, Apple will either not sell enough iPhones, or have to change their licensing so as to allow the functionality you desire. It doesn't mean you are allowed to accept the agreement and then ignore it, legally speaking. You can in actuality as long as you don't get caught.

      Or I could chose to test the validity of the document in question. Apple doesn't make the law. They, like everyone else, have to live within a certain framework. If that framework doesn't allow them to set such restrictions, then no amount of their temper tantrums will make it so.

      Just because you want and iPhone with no restrictions, doesn't mean that they have to sell you one. I want to have sex with various, unnamed celebrity starlets, but that doesn't mean that they have to let me.

      Completely and utterly irrelevant and inaccurate analogy. You cannot use a celebrity as you see fit because s/he cannot become you property (and the law doesn't allow that even if they wished to do so). When purchasing things that can be purchased though (and yes, a copy of a work is an item, not a "license to use an item"), the ultimate authority on what can be done with or to that item is the owner. If I buy a book, I can draw on it, shred it, burn it, recycle it, or put it on pedestal and worship it. The publisher nor author have any capability or legal authority to prevent me from doing any of this.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    6. Re:Apple's reality-distortion field by rezalas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No kidding eh! The occasional /. psychopaths sometime worry me.

      The poster stated if they physically try to force you to stop. IE, touching you. If you touch me without permission, that is assault and I will hurt / kill you if I feel the need to. Note by the way that he also said "shoot them" not "kill them". Many bullet wounds are survivable and don't require long term care. However for those of you who are worried about being shot, if you don't want to die, keep your hands to yourself.

  13. Is this a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple is about one thing: control.

  14. Are you kidding? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft has never been as litigious as Apple. Apple may make vastly overwhelmingly superior products to MS, but they have also always been more evil.

    The only way Apple can become the new Microsoft, is if they stop suing people so much, and also make their stuff crash a lot more often. As things are right now, there's just no comparison. The two companies' suckiness are totally different.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  15. That's an oversimplification.. by tjstork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's just how big companies operate.

    That's actually not true at all. Corporations are collections of people, and within them are coalitions and constituencies just like any other institution. Quite often, you'll have someone that wants a corporation to do something simply because they think it is cool and they really don't care about the profitability or business climate of it. They must justify some action in that regard, to cover their rears, but their mental game has already made the leap that they want to do something with the corporation just because they think it is cool.

    So, when a company builds a school somewhere, sponsors a race, hires a speaker who climbed mt everest, invests in some wild technology, or any of the other things that corporations do, they do it because they think it is cool, and then they cover their rears to the shareholders and directors by inventing some elliptical story about profitability.

    In fact, to many of the world's top business leaders, the whole point of the corporation is to exist to provide some social order and some revenue so that it can fund the private ambitions of its leaders. I mean, come on, do you really think if IBM funds something like a big art exhibit, they really sincerely think that doing so will yield a return? No, they do it because the board of IBM likes art, and that's that.

    It's good to be a CEO.

    --
    This is my sig.
  16. Re:As someone who's developed apps for the iPhone. by atraintocry · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some people program for a living. Controversial I know.

  17. Copyright can't trump OWNERSHIP by WCMI92 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I buy an iphone. I own it. How can Apple tell me what to do with it after I hand over my cash and have receipt in hand?

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market