Apple Reverses Rejection of Ulysses Comic

gyrogeerloose writes "In yet another of what's become an almost predictable cycle of events, Apple today reversed its rejection of the 'Ulysses Seen' web comic, admitting, 'We made a mistake.' The comic is now available in the App Store — just in time for Bloomsday, June 16. The comic's author, Robert Berry, is pleased, and adds that Apple 'never acted as a censor, never told us what we could or could not say. ... We didn't believe these were good guidelines for art, but respected their rights to sell content that met their guidelines at their own store. Apple is not a museum or a library for new content then, so much as they are a grocer.'"

Comments

Wrong

[SuperKendall]

Until Apple runs our government, you cannot state an UNAPPROVED request from Apple is the same as actually violating the law.

It doesn't matter what Apple says, it matters what the COURTS say. Point to a SINGLE EXAMPLE of someone impacted in any way by this hypothetical "law of no jailbreaking".

Re:Wrong

[geekoid]

except changing something isn't copyright infringement. I can buy a copy of moby dick and mark it up however I wish, as long as I don't distribute it.
I can do the same thing with the iPhone. It MIGHT be a violation of copyright if I distribute it. I mean, if Apple has there way.

So I can do what ever the fuck I want to the iPhone OS as long as I don't distribute it.

It's not that hard to understand.

That's assuming I want a device from a company that actively tries to keep me from doing what I want. Like read what I am interested in.

Didn't I?

[SuperKendall]

You're welcome to dare Apple to sue you for jailbreaking your phone, so that we all know that the threat is not real.

I just stated support in public for jailbreaking, as I have many times. Basically, I just did. Also there are countless guides on the internet covering how to jailbreak, and YouTube video. If it were illegal why have those not been taken down by Apple? Why have the websites still got these articles up? Why is Cydia still around and run by someone who lives in the U.S.?

Your argument is finished as REALITY shows us all how patently false a claim it is, and repetition of it only makes you look less intelligent and more rabid a Hater.

Modifying for interoperability is legal

[SuperKendall]

Since you're talking copyright law, you may also want to bring up the fact that copying for interoperability is explicitly allowed in U.S. and E.U. copyright laws:

Since the decompilation process involves making multiple such copies, it is generally prohibited without the authorization of the copyright holder. However, because decompilation is often a necessary step in achieving software interoperability, copyright laws in both the United States and Europe permit decompilation to a limited extent.
In the United States, the copyright fair use defense has been successfully invoked in decompilation cases. For example, in Sega v. Accolade, the court held that Accolade could lawfully engage in decompilation in order to circumvent the software locking mechanism used by Sega's game consoles.

Which is plainly why after many years of people jailbreaking iPhones, not a single person has been charged with this "crime".

Progress made in game space

[SuperKendall]

Unless you restrict yourself solely to homebrew or indie games released with no DRM, if you want to be a part of the gaming culture, you have no choice but to accept the walled garden.

You can jailbreak an iPhone and run any game. Jailbreaking does not mean the App Store ceases working. Rooting an Android is the same way, what you say is partly true of consoles but not true of mobile. That is progress in my book.

There is nothing you can do with an iPhone that can't already be done or theoretically be done with an Android or (pre-7) Windows Mobile device, which are not walled in any way save for programs being written using code that the hardware can interpret.

The key word there is THEORETICALLY. The fact is that the iPhone has a very extensive SDK that makes some things easier to do for developers, and has an overall system model that (for a user) maximizes battery life.

Android itself makes some things better - for instance, the notification handling system is better for the user. But for a lot of people nice touches like that pale beside the fact they simply cannot use the phone as long.

And then of course there is the software choice. Of course theoretically you can do anything on Android. But again, the facts are that the iPhone has a very large software lead and so far the gap is still growing. Most people cannot write software they need for a task.

For the record, since we seem to be going back and forth, let me clear something up: I have no problem with the idea or action of jailbreaking...but I personally won't buy something that I have to hack when there is already a device that does the same thing out of the box.

I can totally understand someone not wanting to support the device from that philosophical standpoint. What drives me nuts are claims that it's not a valid technical clam to make for the abilities of the iPhone. Jailbreaking has been made very simple for a while now, so that pretty much anyone could manage it - certainly technical users who are the ones who care most about the additional functionality resulting.

Also there is the aspect of Apple doing more and more in the OS that used to be limited to jailbreaking (like background tasks). I firmly believe that Apple technically tolerates Jailbreaking despite its public face, because they see it as a lab of where the system might go and what works. The things you even need to jailbreak for is a shrinking space.

Re:-sigh-

[ultramk]

Indeed, it's so impossible to follow that only 60 bajillion developers have managed to figure it out. I mean, it's so impossibly inane and stupid as fuck that it's quickly become the most successful mobile application market on the planet.

Now, who are you calling a fanboi?