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."
Apple can claim whatever they want, and can sue whoever they want for DMCA violations. C&D's are freely distributable.
Whether or not that claim has the weight of law is up to a judge, not a marketing director.
Copyright (it least in it's original form) governed the reproduction and distribution only. If you purchase a legally produced copy of the work, then it is then yours to do with as you see fit. Saying that you can't modify software that you've legally purchased is akin to saying you can't doodle in the margins of a book you bought. And no, just because the publisher decided to print "THOU SHALT NOT DOODLE IN THYN BOOK." on the first page doesn't change anything.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
It's all nuances. Provided that modifying the software on your own device is considered fair use (and I would presume that unless you are violating something else like FCC regs it is), then you - personally - are not guilty of violating the DMCA. However, anyone who helps you is violating the DMCA. The DMCA is an odd law in that it specifically preserves the right to fair use, while making it illegal to assist anyone in exercising fair use.
In this way it is the same as DVD decryption software: legal to decrypt your disc for fair use (including standard playback in licensed players and copying for backup or format shifting), not legal to sell or traffic in the software or any instructions on how to do so.
I don't own an iPhone, primarily because the applications - especially the free (beer and speech) ones - are far more limited than for the wmobile market, and because I have an investment in wmobile software I would have to abandon if I switch. That and the iPhone can't do GPS if you're out of cell service (or couldn't as of 4 months ago when I upgraded my phone)...and that's where I need it the most.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Phones run software. Software is copyrighted. Modifying the software - that is, creating a derivative work - is unauthorized and may well represent a breach of copyright law.
No. Let me help:
Distributing an unauthorized derivative work may well represent a breach of copyright law.
First sale law dictates that I am free to make whatever modifications I like to any software I've bought. The EULA attempts to form a contract with the user, so the actual legal question (IANAL but come on, we've been discussing this with the assistance of the occasional lawyer for many years now) is whether a EULA is binding. My understanding is that this is still very much up in the air. Right now it is, I believe, the fulcrum upon which the Apple vs. Psystar case rests. I think most of us understand that you're not permitted to redistribute someone else's copyrighted material absent the express permission to do so (which is why the GPL only grants freedoms and does not restrict them - at least as compared to unlicensed copyrighted media, if not material released into the public domain. But there I go on a tangent again.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
Depending on the circumstances, the DMCA can do exactly that. However, there are some allowances for reverse engineering and if memory serves correct there is some case law regarding cell phones specifically which says that it's OK to open them.
I could be wrong on the second part but my point is that it's not black and white.
This is a lot like Nintendo saying it's illegal to dump a ROM. The situation as described by written and case law is more complicated, but it serves the company's interest to *basically* lie to people, in order to fight what they see as *basically* piracy.
No kidding eh! The occasional /. psychopaths sometime worry me. I know most of them in reality wouldn't even stand up and complain at a McDonalds about getting the wrong drink, but I wonder if maybe some of them really are THAT batshit crazy and would actually go shoot up the Apple HQ because they can't jailbreak their iPhone.
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
Yes, I am. Looks like a sale, quacks like a sale, it's a sale. If it were a license, it would have to be established under ordinary contract law, with all those nasty legal formalities and meetings of the mind and such -- given that neither Apple (based on the Safari for Windows EULA snafu) nor most of the users ("just click Agree and the box goes away") actually reads the thing, it'd be pretty hard to establish that.
Unfortunately, you may be onto something there. According to the 2600 case, it doesn't matter whether the work was sold or not. No one argues that DVDs are licensed rather than sold. Yet the Circuit Court in the 2600 case decided that for a purchaser to circumvent the copy protection to gain access to a copy of a work _which he owned_ was a violation of the DMCA.
What a laugh. I havent met a CEO yet who didn't think he was improving / changing the world. CEOs are some of the most deluded people you could support/work with (followed closely by dentists). Of course they think they are a maverick leader who will bring change to the world, and hey, if their pockets get lined on the way, so much the better! The private ambitions of a corporations leaders is to make money for themselves. When they get more money than they can spend, and plenty of revenue streams and projects to fund their future (otherwise known as "security") then of course they start doing crazy things to blow the companies/their money.
Still does not mean they are being altruistic, they just have more money than they know really what to do with.
Id much rather have the profits from all these large corporations redistributed equally to all the workers. I think the masses are much more altruistic as a whole than individual ceos, or even their combined board.
Bottom line, they give more because they have more. They fund crazy things because they have more "crazy" disposable income than anyone else. Of course it is good to be a CEO, for the CEO...
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
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.
Yep, that's the working model of our culture, all right. And it is full of fail. "Working within the system" doesn't do it. I have this argument with a particular friend of mine almost weekly, and he's a well-meaning guy as I'm sure you are, but he's wrong and so are you.
For God's sake open a newspaper, it's all over the front page. That bit about the "economic meltdown?" Or the "climate crisis," the "energy crisis," and on and on and on? It's because people decided it would be easier to just cut a deal. Our practicality, our comprimises, our working with people and organizations we don't like, has completely fucked us.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!