Slashdot Mirror
Jailbreaking iPhone Now Legal
whisper_jeff writes "The US government on Monday announced new rules making it officially legal for iPhone owners to 'jailbreak' their device and run unauthorized third-party applications, as well as the ability to unlock any cell phone for use on multiple carriers."
The EFF has further details on this and some of the other legal protections granted in the new rules.
Sudden outbreak of common sense.
Press release from EFF:
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26
Now we are going to see a torrent of pornography for the iPhone! Think of the children!
Palm trees and 8
Steve Jobs is going fishing for suckers.
Just because the Feds say it's ok doesn't mean he won't STILL sue and WIN.
This is an election year.
Then only criminals will have jailbreaks.
I'm sure someone will come out with some cools apps with some interesting added features!
Jailbreaking iPhone WAS Legal.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
shouldn't it be "Jailbreaking iPhone Now Not Illegal"?
Here ya go:
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26
coding is life
He'll be in his angry dome!
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Reverse-engineering for interoperability was always covered by fair use, and that's what this is. Perhaps distribution of the software might have been illegal in some cases, but that's a non-issue since most of the iPhone Dev Team isn;t based in the US anyway.
I shouldn't have to jailbreak it in the 1st place. I'll take the ability to have a true open market, along with superior technology. Oh, and a phone that you know, actually works and can place calls without dropping, from RIM or Google.
I could care less. Apple just isn't good enough. This story: *yawn*
The real story is the video remixing: "EFF also won a groundbreaking new protection for video remix artists currently thriving on Internet sites like YouTube. The new rule holds that amateur creators do not violate the DMCA when they use short excerpts from DVDs in order to create new, noncommercial works for purposes of criticism or comment if they believe that circumvention is necessary to fulfill that purpose. Hollywood has historically taken the view that "ripping" DVDs is always a violation of the DMCA, no matter the purpose."
One of the things I dislike about having things solved with regulation as opposed to laws is that regulations typically fall under the executive branch, and as such could change on a whim as administrations change. I see from the article that this is part of an list of exemptions (from the DMCA?) that is set by the U.S. Copyright Office in the Library of Congress. At a risk of showing my ignorance, is this a Legislative office, or an Executive one? How are its members appointed, how easy is it for them to add/revoke things, etc?
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
What it doesn't say is that Apple (or others) have to make it easy to do, or that they can't "unintentionally" brick your phone if you do.
So do these new exceptions apply to the iPod Touch as well? I would assume so since it's the same app process, but RFA only mentioned phones. Also what about the Playstation 3 and how they don't allow Linux anymore, would this fall under this, too?
This is good, but not as good as a repeal or amendment of the DMCA so that the anti-circumvention provisions do not apply if the use of the copyrighted material is otherwise legal (e.g., if something qualifies as fair use == automatic irrelevance of any circumvention provisions). Having a few officially-recognized exceptions is nice, but the whole idea that protection measures can trump fair use and other legitimate uses is wrong in principle.
"The US government on Monday announced new rules make it officially legal for iPhone owners to 'jailbreak' their device and run unauthorized third-party applications, as well as the ability to unlock any cell phone for use on multiple carriers."
Doesn't apply to pre-paid phones like Net-10 and Straight talk.
I don't think legality was holding people back. It mainly was the technical expertise to do so.
I think jailbreaking will be still limited to the hobbiest.
To use a car analogy (Which will be replied to with a better analogy proving me wrong):
Now everyone can put "illegal" flamethrower pipes on their car and not get arrested, but who's going to do it but hobbiest?
..and their Kool_Aid Consumpting Collaborators (sorry, Customers..) - theres some good stuff here:
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 and documentary filmmakers to break copy-protection measures on DVDs so they can embed clips for educational purposes, criticism, commentary and noncommercial videos.
allow computer owners to bypass the need for external security devices called dongles if the dongle no longer works and cannot be replaced.
- Like, Result! Cheers!
Note that the Librarian of Congress Rulemaking provision only exempts the circumvention provisions of the DMCA. The Librarian cannot exempt individuals from the distribution provisions of the DMCA.
So, while you can now legally jailbreak your phone, it would still be illegal to distribute the software program itself.
Good. I still don't want an iPhone.
It was never illegal in the first place
That Apple isn't allowed to do anything warranty-wise if you jailbreak your iphone in the future? Could they refuse to replace a broken glass screen if they find out your iphone is or was ever jailbroken, JUST BECAUSE it was jailbroken?
Otherwise I don't see any implications for the end user. It's not like if you went into an Apple store with a jailbroken iphone the authorities were called to arrest you. Also, the people involved in the jailbreak process haven't exactly been trying to hide their work, they even have videos of them in the process.
America... FUCK YEAH!
I think jailbreaking will be still limited to the hobbiest....who's going to do it but hobbiest?
Yeah, the hobbier you are, the more likely you are to Jailbreak. Less-hobby users either won't know how to do it, or won't run into the limitations of the stock configuration anyway.
Sigh. My work web filter doesn't let me access eff.org. It's been classified as an "Advocacy Organization" and is therefore illegal.
Oh god, here we go with the "everything should be open" talk. Just like all the RIM phones, right? And the Android phones you have to root? And the router you have to hack new firmware onto? You will never see a true open market and even if you did it most certainly wouldn't have superior technology. It's just not the way the world works man. Wake up!
This has nothing to do with warranties. You can legally put an iPhone through a blender, too, but I'd imagine the warranty wouldn't cover that.
I shouldn't have to jailbreak it in the 1st place.
Just like you shouldn't have to root Android either. But you do.
To have the fullest set of freedoms that is... which 90% of the people using the device neither need nor care about.
So wait, why should a device ship by default in a mode that only a small portion of the populace will use and that makes the device less secure and easier for the user to alter in a way they cannot recover from?
Isn't it enough that anyone who NEEDS the wider range of technical abilities, can easily activate it on demand? Why must any company ship a product made worse for the consumer because of your selfish desires?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The three branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.
The legislative branch consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. No relation to who is President at all, other than that the VP casts the tiebreaking vote in the Senate. These are the people who come up with proposed laws (bills) and try to get them passed. Any bill must bounce back and forth between the House and Senate until they agree and decide it should pass before it goes before the President.
The executive branch consists of the President. He signs bills into law. He also appoints certain members of the Judicial branch.
The Judicial branch enforces the laws. They are the court system, most notably the Supreme court. As members of the Supreme Court are appointed by the president, but serve lifetime terms, this is where the President has the most lasting effects.
All three branches are involved in the creation and sustainment of laws/regulations. No one branch is more powerful than the others - each balances the others out.
That being said, the LoC (as part of Congress) is part of the Legislative branch, under the oversight of your Congresscritters.
http://www.loc.gov/about/
Have fun.
They just can't use the DMCA in their defense. They may find some other loophole to prosecute you, and they may still brick your phone with some kind of firmware update.
This also applies to rooting Android phones, or unlocking Android phones. Don't be be a shortsighted fanboy just because the headline writer was.
Because of the dancing bunny issue, I wouldn't mind a hurdle steep enough to keep Joe Sixpack from jailbreaking his phone, downloading a "pr0n viewer", getting his phone infected, then bitching to the world how insecure the phone is. Something that will make him go, "gee, I might 'brick' my phone if I do this wrong" and keep his cluelessness inside the walled garden.
However, the obstacle shouldn't be too high that makes it iffish to impossible for people to know the ramifications to do it. Ideally it should be something like booting to a recovery prompt with a "$" sign, typing in something like "echo '1' > /proc/jailbrokenstatus" then rebooting, and when the phone comes on, it would be trivial to download Cydia and go to town.
The Nexus 1 had it right with the OEM Unlock command and the warning about "if you unlock this phone, there is no more warranty and any damage you bring is your own fault." Something stern enough to keep the guy with the drool cup from doing it, but someone who knows a kernel from an inode, it would be no sweat.
can you hear me now?
"Apple's claim that copyright law prevents people from installing unapproved programs on iPhones"
I can't even describe the extent to which hearing this makes me sick.
Making it legal is the backdoor way to give them the right to make it illegal. Prior to this your right to mod it came from the right of first sale. you own it. you can mod it. Now that right has been given you to a law. It shows that you did not have the right to mod it till it was explicity granted. Now it will be possible to take that right away.
If you think I'm paranoid then you don't know history. The way the government historically gains power is to grant you rights you already have, then modify them later.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Canada, but it'll never happen as the CRTC is outdated and the lap dog of big busineses!
Michael
http://s1.sfgame.us/index.php?rec=58163
Demonoid says you're wro- wait, you have to register there.
Carry on, good sir. Carry on.
Living With a Nerd
And the problem with socialism is what exactly? I can give you all sorts of examples of how capitalism has caused harm and is evil. That is why USians still cling on to capitalism while every one else is embracing socialism and communism.
Sincerely,
Signed:
The rest of the world.
lol i guess you've never actually used (or seen) any phone from rim or google?
Is anyone else disturbed that the Copyright Office is allowed to rewrite copyright law? That's Congress's job, and they shouldn't be allowed to defer it to an unelected body.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Well I think this is good for people that want to use there phones on other carriers. The only thing this has the potential to make the phone unstable or have a security vulnerability. I think if you want to jailbreak the phone be prepared for the consequences. Not to mention Apple might not give you support because you jail broke the phone. You could always fall back on the forums. But at least now its legal to do this.
http://www.thetechnologygeek.org
I've always felt that once I've bought a device it's mine to do with as I please. If I want to disassemble it, format it, load a copy of CP/M on it or cut it in half with a skill saw, that's my business.
But I certainly don't feel entitled to warranty support after I've gone out of the reasonable bounds of what the company expected me to do with the product.
They never sold the phone as a general purpose device that I can load whatever I want to on it, they shouldn't have to support it as such.
I'll gladly demand my right to enough rope to hang myself with, but only with the understanding that that is exactly what I'm getting.
I notice nothing is mentioned about simply rooting your android.
I haven't been able to find a definitive declaration, but I've been told and have read reports that rooting my DInc will result in a voided warranty.
IMO, this is like buying a Windows machine, but not having the right to administrative access.
What if I want to continue getting updates on the OS, but I also want to uninstall the crapware? I know there's very little on the DInc, but from what I hear and read, the X is choked with it. And these 'crapps' are using phone and network resources. What if you have a limited data plan (and regardless of what Verizon says, it will happen sooner or later), and your phone passively uses more than twice the data bandwidth you use actively? $$$$ out the window and into your carrier's pocket.
So, the real question (for me, anyhow), is does this apply to Android?
"Just like all the RIM phones"? What's your problem with a Java development environment which allows you to develop apps or to install those developed by RIM either through your desktop or BES, with RIM neither knowing nor caring?
(
(
(
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
Greedheads and economic control freaks like Steve Jobs were heard to cry "FFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUU--!" :)
Thanks, government, for telling people that they can do things that they should be able to do anyway. What's next? Telling us that we're allowed to keep up with traffic when every other car on the road is going 15MPH over the speed limit?
So how long will it be before people are thoroughly bricking their own iPhones with bad firmware updates and bad applications, getting their identities stolen, then blaming Apple? I can smell the lawyers and the puddles already.
If people want to jailbreak their cell phones, fine, but with that comes absolute responsibility. Not one word of blame on the provider or manufacturer, including when your credit card is suddenly maxed from Thailand, or when the FCC comes knocking on your door because you downloaded a cell-tower spammer that you thought was a jiggly-boobs app. You don't get to sue, you don't get to say it's Apple's fault, and you get to pay for the trouble you cause.
Scream "freedom" all you want, but recognize that with it comes the full burden of the consequences of your actions. If... and only if... you can handle that, enjoy your iPhone on T-mobile or wherever else. I'm all for being able to go to other carriers, but if the process involves downloading a firmware image from Russia, yeah, I'll pass.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
But you buy the -hardware- unless you are overclocking the CPU or something, they should have to allow warranty claims for hardware issues. Just because I run Linux on my laptop, if the screen dies, I expect the hardware company to pay for it if it is under warranty. Granted, if I try to install RAM that isn't compatible with the system and I break the sockets, of course the hardware company shouldn't have to pay for it.
No matter what you do with the software, it shouldn't ever break hardware barring overclocking and the like and so they should still have to allow claims for hardware issues.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I like the news because it seems to be friendly towards the public, but it seems arbitrary and not necessary. Why can't the free market handle this? People are not forced to buy iPhones or support proprietary OSes so I am not sympathetic to those that buy these products and cry for choice. Maybe the price for quality is that the device exists in a walled garden so the producer can recoup costs otherwise the price would be higher.
Shouldn't Apple have the right to make relationships they feel are beneficial? Why are people sympathetic to Apple's consumers if they have bought into a walled garden? Who is really pushing for this rule; could it be Cricket, T-Mobile or other carriers and not consumers?
If the rule is aimed at breaking down walled gardens like Apple's marketplace and carrier agreement, then can we have proprietary anything? Why isn't DirectX forced to open up for PC gaming as that is a marketplace that has to pay royalties to MS twice? Should MPEG be able to maintain its grip on video processing, storage, replay, etc?
To represent how this argument quickly becomes absurd, why not have rules for hardware substitution like putting a Snapdragon in an iPhone? What about replacing the ALU in the processor for alternatives because that interface should also be available to consumers to replace as they feel?
Well, I guess business will change the way it is done. I wonder what the impact will be.
I never needed the government's permission before why should I now?
Relaxing imaginary DMCA restrictions makes the new government look like a hero while quietly ignoring the elephant in the room.
Should our leaders be lauded for adding exceptions to an already complex legal system. Is it impossible for us to tear down two laws and replace it with one simpler law. Or will entropy in this political organism carry us to our downfall?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Yes, please.
There were bricked iPhones due to software unlocks. Granted, they were eventually unbricked, but software that screws with things at very low levels can and does brick devices from time to time. Anyway, if it's a software issue, then the user should just be able to restore the phone and be done with it. They'd lose all their third-party goodies, but that's the price to pay.
Are they legalising circumvention of DRM and hardware protection?
Is it possible to legally fit a mod chip into a games console now?
Lets face it, many people jailbreak the device to run pirate software.
always should have been.
Why do people think it's their God given right to whatever they want, whenever they want to do it?
Lets say I'm sitting in my bedroom, and I've thought of a good way to build the coolest new freakin' toy out there. Unfortunately is sooo damn expensive for me to do so, and it would cost you more money than you would normally pay. So, I need to find a way to allow you to pay over time...
So, lets say it costs me $200 to make this thing, I have to recover my R&D, I have to cover my FUTURE customer support costs (MANY people forget this) and I want to make a profit. Lets say to do that, it'd cost $800 for each device. No way I could sell that direct to consumer.
Hell, no one would ever agree to that price even if I did sell it over time... But lets say I blended that price in with something else that they also wanted, and they'd pay for that over time as well? How about a phone contract? Well, maybe I can get all my $$ up front and let the phone company bare the burden of $$/time. Well, they're only going to do that for me if I give them some reasonable assurance that when someone buys my device, they're going to stick with that company? Well, I can make my device only work with their service. That should assure them. Now I can sell the product... but what about that customer support nightmare? I want people to trust that my product is going to run the way they expect it to. How can I guarantee that it will? Well, I can approve every program that gets installed on it, making sure that 1. It's not spyware, 2. It's not a virus 3. It's not going to run folding@home in the background using up their plan's data and their battery. Or I could just people do whatever the F* they want on the thing and when they call in to customer support I can say their SOL. I'll take the chance that most people prefer I run an app store, and those who don't want it can F* off.
Sorry, this is getting long and I'll stop soon.
I guess my point is, if I'm going to build a product I'll charge whatever I want, put whatever rules on it I want and for those who don't like it can go buy something else*. Oh, just about all the other manufacturers realize this problem too? And they have the same solution? Then build your own damn phone! But don't tell ME what my product does and does not have to do. Don't tell me I have to sell my contract subsidized product to anyone for whatever they want to do with it.
*yes, it's reasonable to tell me I can't see a product that's going to shoot someone in the head or give babies lead poisoning
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
This is the first time since the DMCA has been introduced that any compromise has been offered. There are specific exemptions for fair use things like educational use and security testing should cover most of the issues that people have while still making it possible to go after those who distribute in public forums. Of course, since it's a compromise, us piratey types would have to make a couple of concessions too:
These concessions seem pretty reasonable to me, provided that no effort is made to make the exemptions moot. My arguments justifying piracy on philosophical grounds do not hold up if the US government adheres to these exceptions in good faith. Under these new conditions, I do not feel unnecessarily limited in my use of a copyrighted work, and I hope that others would feel the same way. I admit that there are still some smaller issues to deal with, most notably things like eFuse which would not allow users to exercise their rights under the new exceptions. However, overall, this is much better than the DMCA as it was originally introduced.
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
Why is this story in the Apple category? Is it really the only phone worth jailbreaking ? Did the copyright office only exempt the iPhone?
If you think I'm paranoid then you don't know history. The way the government historically gains power is to grant you rights you already have, then modify them later.
Okay, let's say I don't know history. Give me some examples, please.
Can they put "Eden Incentives" which only work if your phone is locked? It's like an inverse phrasing of Apple Lock. "Sure, you can have a phone, but if you set your 'i on us' we'll give you goodies!"
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
And Apple is supposed to have to have some super investigation team to go out there and figure out what's wrong with it, and whether anything you did to the phone actually caused the problem? There are all kinds of things software can do to brick a device - there are tons of examples of this. Like the GP said, don't stop me from tinkering on it and I won't call you when I break it.
1201(a)(1)(C/D) gives power to the Librarian of Congress to exempt acts of circumvention (the "No person shall circumvent.." part) but there's no similar LoC modification to tools part (1201(a)(2), which starts with "No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in.."). So while it has become legal to jailbreak, it's still illegal to write or sell a program that does it. Thus each user much have technical expertise. And you're allowed to have and use a computer program that enables your phone, but you're not allowed to write that program.
That's what ownership is about. You sell your product to me, it's now mine and not yours; you don't get to control what I do with it any more and I get to do what I want with it.
They didn't pass a law "making it legal." They clarified a series of exemptions to existing law. Existing law, i.e. the DMCA, already made circumvention illegal. That law was the one that took away your right to modify your phone or whatever. So this is definitely an improvement. Save the tinfoil for the next DMCA.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/apple-loses-big-in-drm-ruling-jailbreaks-are-fair-use.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss
Forget Apple: Look at what this does to DMCA takedowns!
First up: DVDs! Previous exemptions have been carved out for college professors who might use film clips in class. But note the broad nature of the new rule--it applies to everyone. As long as you are making a documentary or noncommercial video, you're in.
The exemption only covers "short portions of motion pictures," since the Register was not convinced that longer portions would necessarily be fair use. And if there's some other way of getting the clips short of bypassing DRM, you should take it.
This would be great news if it meant we could get that unlock code when we've fulfilled our 2 year contracts to use on other carriers (like when traveling overseas).
DLC for phones?
It'd ruin the resale market a bit too.
you're holding it wrong
Why do people think it's their God given right to whatever they want, whenever they want to do it?
It's a reasonable expectation to do what you want with something you've purchased.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Why are you comparing rooting an Android with the iPhone being locked onto a single carrier?
Why are you?
I'm talking about Jailbreaking.
Unlocking is totally different (though also covered by the same rule clarification).
Jailbreaking has nothing to do with carrier support.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The "real story" here depends on what you're more interested in. I'd wager more people have iphones than remix videos, hence the bias in the title.
Jailbreaking is legal under the doctrine of first sale, but this is implied under common law
until a judge says so explicitly. An explicit right to jailbreak in statute law makes the issue moot for the time being
but does not remove any existing right under common law first sale doctrine.
Freeeeeeeeedoooooooooom!!!!!
The only argument against that which I can think of is that you are essentially mortgaging the phone with most phone plans - you get it for a low or zero upfront fee and you're essentially buying the phone with higher monthly fees. And when you mortgage a house, there are certain things the bank says you can't do to it while they own it - among other restrictions, I specifically remember them saying I couldn't store large tanks of gasoline in my house. For phones, I guess it would come down to whether this is explicitly stated in the service contract.
I am guessing we will see allot more efuse (Droid) type approaches in the future. Considering this current ruling, I wound if the vender is held legally responsable for damaging (aka bricking) a device if the intent is to prevent it from being tampered with?
Stop spreading this. It's not true. Did you know practically every embedded chip shipping these days has eFuses in it? Do you know what they're used for? Configuration, unique IDs (e.g MAC address) and other minor things. NOT to cause bricking.
This whole thing started from a so-called hacker putting 2 + 2 together and getting 23948304958. He has no idea what he's talking about, and this has been refuted many times. But it's so easy to start a malicious rumor in the tech press these days because the tech press apparently has nobody who fact checks.
Another big win for those who wish to see all private property become "communal".
Seems more like a win for people who actually want to OWN the things they buy rather than enter into an extended, unsupported lease.
You might want to see a proctologist about that whole "cranium" issue.
I would like to think (I know it to NOT be true) but if you pay "full" price it's yours, if you pay contract price, the carrier owns part of your phone until your contract is over. It is a contract after all. They pay for part of your phone, you agree to use their service. Ah, to live in a perfect world!
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
Really hate to burst everyones "hoorays!" and "it's about time" comments, but I really don't see how this is going to change matters much with any provider out there. Seems to me they would still reserve the right to only support phones that they sell and configure.
If you can manage to get your phone working on their networks without violating the TOS and don't need support (like, ever), then perhaps this will be beneficial. But chances are you were doing this anyway...
I guess my point is, if I'm going to build a product I'll charge whatever I want, put whatever rules on it I want and for those who don't like it can go buy something else
You can try to put any rule on it you want. But unless you can get the government to ultimately back you up with enforcement, people can and will simply ignore your rules.
In this case, the government just said that they aren't backing you up. Too bad for you. Try a different plan.
You also don't have a god-given right to use government resources to enforce any unrealistic business model you want.
"Jailbreaking iPhone WAS Legal."
Not in America it wasn't. It required circumvention of parts covered in the DMCA which is a law, and a violation of said law thus making it illegal.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Why do people think it's their God given right to whatever they want, whenever they want to do it?
There's where you went off the mark. You're wrong about this in the context of our discussion; I purchased the iTouch and I want to jailbreak it with or without Apple's permission, and I wish to do so in a manner that makes sense for my use of the product, but not for the majority of people who own said product, and without violating any laws; my iTouch wants to run nmap and other network security apps. So, your statement above, as it applies to me, is wrong and uninformed.
It *IS* my right to use any product in anyway I please. End of story. = Period.
If I purchase a hammer, then weld a nail to the tip... you see where I'm going?
Wrong again. Here's where I'm going; I wish to use this new device as a method to aerate my lawn rather than a $26 dedicated aerator, so I just made one with a $5 hammer and a 5 cent nail. Same thing with the iTouch/iPhone/iPod; I purchased it and I will use it as I please, whether to aerate my lawn or drive in a nail or look up something on the InterTubes. Apple can bitch all they want, but what I do with their devices after purchase is my own business, not theirs. So, please get a clue before you write a bunch of nonsense. You sound like a Luddite. The game is changing and Apple looks foolish, just like Nintendo, for blocking legitimate uses of their products in the name of scraping out a few extra bucks at the inconvenience of their "customers."
This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
You must not have used early versions of X11. Back in the old days you needed to enter in the horizontal and vertical refresh rates and resolutions... Improper configuration could damage some CRT screens.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
If you buy an iPhone, jailbreak it and then the headphone out jack breaks.... why shouldn't that be covered by the warranty?
I'm going to use the ever-popular car analogy. Car makers used to do this... your car was only under warranty if it was repaired by certified technicians, with "Genuine" parts. Good business to be had, especially if you're building pretty unreliable vehicles. And it was a scam: replace the radio with something nicer and then if your transmission fell apart they'd claim it wasn't under warranty anymore. Of course, this doesn't happen today because there's a law: if something in your car breaks, the car maker has to honor the warranty unless the failure was caused by a modification you made.
There's no reason why a similar rule shouldn't be applied to consumer electronics. If I buy a phone and replace or modify the user software, there's no reason why the hardware should not remain covered.
Since when must you pass a law to specifically make something legal, that was not illegal to begin with??
But you buy the -hardware- unless you are overclocking the CPU or something, they should have to allow warranty claims for hardware issues.
so if you install software to allow you to install software to allow you to wipe the chip that allows for updating the memory locations used to store the program that boots the phone up, you believe the hardware company should be liable? there is a reason certain memory is protected.
But you buy the -hardware- unless you are overclocking the CPU or something, they should have to allow warranty claims for hardware issues. Just because I run Linux on my laptop, if the screen dies, I expect the hardware company to pay for it if it is under warranty. Granted, if I try to install RAM that isn't compatible with the system and I break the sockets, of course the hardware company shouldn't have to pay for it.
No matter what you do with the software, it shouldn't ever break hardware barring overclocking and the like and so they should still have to allow claims for hardware issues.
What you want is for Apple to invest money to make sure their hardware is fault tolerant against buggy software that hasn't even been written yet. Software that could only be installed by deliberately escaping the insulated ecosystem they already invested money building.
You're perspective is way off. And I'm by no means a fanboy.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
no, but what if you install software to allow you to install software to allow you to install software to allow you to install software to allow you to install software to allow you to install software to allow you to wipe the chip that allows for updating the memory locations used to store the program that boots the phone up?
Jail breaking was never illegal, it simply meant that if you did it, Apple was no longer required to service your phone. This ruling does not change that.
Can you look at pc app DRM like with game DRM under the new law.
Yet say the IT guy at a office takes a look at some apps DRM system to see if they have holes like the Sony root kit in them and be cover under this law?
I agree with both your post and the parent, the question arises when you install software that, say, makes the hardware do things that the original software was designed not to.
I remember running linux on a laptop that had dodgy power management, the fans wouldn't turn on when the cpu started to heat up. Eventually the hardware cut out would switch the laptop off when the cpu hit 100 Celsius. Eventually the laptop died by way of failed charging connection - I can't say whether or not it was related to the excessive heating and cooling.
If you install some 3rd party OS on your iPhone that creams the cpu and it, say, discolours the screen, or maybe cracks the case - then surely you can't expect a warranty replacement? I'm not suggesting you would try and pull that one, but I'm sure there are others who may not be so scrupulous.
Invaders must die
ah, but if the headphone jack breaks for an iPhone that *is* under warranty Apple is likely to deny the claim citing "user damage" and thus not covered. YMMV
Anecdotal: my iPhone has similar breakage (though not the headphone) and they refused to do anything about it. My wife carries her's in her back pocket, and the stress of being sat on eventually resulted in the front glass fracturing quite spectacularly. The same guy on the same visit replaced her iPhone without asking any questions (I dealt with him on both phones).
So while I agree with your premise I don't know that the distinction is at all significant. In any case, I don't expect that the "jail breaking violates warranty" would hold up if challenged. Just, who is going to spend all the money to challenge it over a phone that costs $1000
The EFF article said "The exemptions were granted as part of a statutorily proscribed rulemaking process". They obviously meant "prescribed", but I had this amusing flash of a rulemaking comittee meeting in a secret room to make banned rules.
On behalf of the citizenry of the internet, as King and supreme ruler of said internet, I hereby declare today to be iBastille Day.
Huzzah!
But lets say I blended that price in with something else that they also wanted, and they'd pay for that over time as well? How about a phone contract?
Even if you jailbreak or unlock the phone you'll still have a contract. You can connect an unlocked iPhone to T-Mobile, but you'll still have a legal commitment to keep paying AT&T, who will keep billing you. If you want out of your original contract there's an early termination fee to cover the device cost.
The discussion of interest is that once the contract reaches the end of its term (two years or whatever) you 1) no longer have to keep paying to subsidize a device already amortized, and 2) you have the option to terminate your contract and change carriers if you feel the one you have is so poor it's worth the termination fee. In fact, the device should automatically be unlocked at the end of the contract term (since all obligations are met at that point), or the termination fee has been paid and the contract canceled.
For people who have paid off their devices in full we need a free market for services that reflect network cost, with zero device cost.
No, they don't. The contract says you have to pay them X amount of money a month for two years (or, alternately, pay a penalty if you wish to leave the plan early). This doesn't have anything to do with the phone itself (or what you do with it).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The point is there should be a bootloader in ROM that allows for a failsafe to restore the device to factory conditions or at least allow it a minimal capability to load such an image off another system. Nothing in erasable storage should ever be able to brick the phone. It's trivial for designers to avoid that unless they are doing it on purpose to punish hardware hackers.
you'd still be an idiot without a point?
There were bricked iPhones due to software unlocks. Granted, they were eventually unbricked
do you even know what "bricked" means?
Like anyone can even know that
Many products have limitations on how they are used that affect warranty. Many tools designed for home users are not to be used commercially - doing so voids the warranty. That car with a 3 year warranty is only good if you avoid using the car too much - too much milage will void the warranty. If you try reading the warranty on just about any product you will see that there are usage restrictions that will render that warranty void.
Note that many expensive brands offer excellent warranties. Break a Snap-On wrench and it will get replaced even if you intentionally cut it in half. Others are still good, just less so. Break a Henckel knife and it will get replaced but only if there was a manufacturing defect and you are still responsible for shipping costs. (Yes, this did happen to me.)
I doubt there is a single portable electronic device* on the market that will allow you to change the firmware without voiding the warranty. Point being, warranty restrictions are to be expected. If you want full control / flexibility then purchase a developer device direct from the manufacturer at a 100x cost premium.
*Ok, some hobbyist devices might allow it but good luck finding those at Walmart.
Bricked is the new "literally".
I am a law abiding citizen!
and what if you want to alter the boot sequence? is your competition going to offer that ability and brand your platform as a "walled garden"? where does the platform begin? at the hardware, the bootloader, or the first user interface?
who read the title at first as '... illegal' instead of legal?
Government rules/law + common sense are not normally two linked concepts (least without a negative in there somewhere).
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
Okay, I've very confused here.
I've never heard of the Apple warranty people care about jailbreaking, period, and I'd like some documentation of this. (They do care about unlocking, but that's not the same thing.)
This is actually because with hardware it doesn't matter, and with software the first solution to a software problem is 'back up the phone, and restore', which also un-jailbreaks it.
Now, I suspect, if you went in with a non-jailbroken phone, they might have a solution or two to try first, whereas with the jailbroken one they'll (quite understandable) do a full restore first, but I've never heard of them refusing support.
I'm actually confused as to how they'd know you jailbroke your phone. Surely if they cared, people would just reset it before getting service.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
... looking for the young vote in the upcoming elections. Whatever the reason, this new law is great news.
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
Only in the United States.
Well-designed embedded systems have a boot watchdog -- if the system fails to boot properly X times in a row they will boot from the backup ROM that only allows re-flashing of the main firmware instead of the normal runtime firmware. You'll find the same thing on many non-emebedded systems with boot code, but typically those versions are manually activated with a jumper or somesuch. Your current motherboard might have such a thing if you looked.
For one thing, this design makes it much easier to do debugging and testing in the design phases, when you're actually writing the firmware, so that you don't have to burn chips externally every time you muck something up. For another, it ensures that nothing you can do in the field will make the device irreparably broken, short of actual hardware failure, which simplifies troubleshooting and reduces warranty and customer service costs.
my motherboards all have ROM firmware jumpers. i've used them. the problem is we're talking about portable phones and not desktop computers... i want my phone as small as possible, and if that means less room on the pcb with less leads and less chips, i'd rather buy that phone and trust the manufactures understand that they are working without a net and need to lock down the platform enough to ensure memory can't be corrupted.
I doubt it was ever illegal in the first place anyway because as I interpret the DMCA, the law stops you cracking copy protection - not that I am (or ever plan to be) an iPhone owner, but doesn't jailbreaking just mean having the ability to install non-Apple approved software?
It still doesn't mean Apple have to support it, plus I doubt the sanity of anyone who buys a locked-in device with the sole purpose of unlocking it anyway.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
as opposed to you, who are an idiot with a point who still maintains that point even after it's been pretty conclusively demonstrated by numerous people that your point is inaccurate.
Seriously, though -- I once thought as you do, but it's been a long time since "literally" always literally meant "literally". http://www.slate.com/id/2129105
Can this work the other way around? For example, they are saying I can put any third party software onto my iphone now. Even though apple has not approved of the software for their hardware, but what if I buy a piece of software like OSX and put it on hardware they do not approve of?
This is just great news, and has put a bounce in my step. I wonder how this administrative ruling will affect things like Nintendo's efforts to stop people running third party stuff on the Wii? Not pirated stuff, third party stuff. My daughter's current favorite Wii game is "My Little Ball."
--
Toro
Awesome!!! Now if we could also pass a law that would allow me to choose Pepsi or Coke in the same restaurant this would be a perfect world.
Good one. : ) It's a pain to want to use the word correctly, it is useful and the alternative is circumlocution, which just isn't preferable to succintness; but having to explain the correct sense also defeats the purpose.
Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, IDIOT?
Unsupported software can damage hardware.
Although as far as the warranty goes, Apple doesn't care what you did to the software on your iPhone or iPod Touch - they'll honor the warranty regardless. My jailbroken iPod Touch stopped working and I went in and it was replaced, no comment.
Bricked is the new "literally".
Probably the most informative post in this discussion.
...When it gets unbricked.
Back in the old days, everyone needed to do that. Later on, monitors became able to advertise their capabilities, but the possibility of specifying exactly what you want and the warnings about the dangers of misconfiguration remained, and still remain.
It wasn't an X11 issue, it was a back in the day devices weren't as good about not accepting input that would damage them issue.
Unless Apple is somehow magically immune to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, that is how it works. Why nobody appears to be calling Apple out on it, I don't know.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Why not? Most of the other devices they've made, from the Apple I to the Macbook Air, manage to be that way!
Bricking isn't an accidental consequence of "escaping the insulated ecosystem;" bricking is a deliberate punishment for trying!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
If the device doesn't have a hardware failsafe (similar to your laptop), then the design is wrong and the designer should be liable.
By the way, your laptop's charging connection probably failed from snagging the cord too many times.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Pretty sure the warranty on Sears Craftsman hand tools is like that too. Speaking of which: you know the difference between Craftsman and Evolv (a cheaper Sears tool brand)? They both have lifetime warranties, but with Craftsman you only need to bring in the tool while with Evolv you need to bring in the tool and the receipt.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The same rule -- namely, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act -- does apply to consumer electronics. In fact, it applies to all "consumer products," which are defined in the Act as "any tangible personal property which is distributed in commerce and which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes."
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
We aren't arguing the same thing. The post I responded to appeared to me to claim that Apple should honor warrantees on jailbroken phones; the argument is that Apple should design hardware so good that software can't possibly destroy it. I was refuting that claim, not addressing bricking caused by jailbreaking.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
As an iphone developer, I love what jail breaking allows in terms of tinkering but hate what it does to our bottom line.
Jail broken iPhones allow pirating of apps which means less sales for developers. Say what you will about Apple and their dictatorship model of development and publishing but it really is making sure app development is sustainable and that the platform continues.
Until Apple provided the tools to fix them, there was no way to recover them. So yes, they were bricked.
...which wouldn't be an issue on a laptop like the original poster had.
I'd like to get a smart phone and use it just as a voice phone...not using any of the data features except the Wifi connection.
AT&T Cust Service says they can detect the Smart phone and will automatically charge for data service.
So I'm willing to give up the AT&T's Internet features on the phone and just stick with voice and texts and be satisfied with using hot spots when I can find them
So is there a way to hide the fact that a "smart phone" is connected?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
i wonder if there will be any change in regards to limiting what os can be run on what hardware, interoperability and all that. hackintosh?
...
Actually, Archos did sell mp3 players into wal-mart which allowed for firmware updating, and had a downloadable SDK. So, occasionally it does happen... once a decade or so.
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
The charging connection should not fail because of high CPU temperature. Either the rest of the laptop should be designed to take the CPU running that high and cutting out, or there should be additional cut outs.
How could an OS possibly discolour the screen or crack the case?
If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, PC warranties should be voided if you install any third party software, and certainly if you install or connect it to third party hardware. The game you install might run the CPU to hard and over heat it, or your USB mouse might short out the USB port, etc.
Warranties should be valid unless you have actually done something to damage it.
You know, it's remarkable that no one ever made a Windows virus that would bypass the Windows display drivers and set deliberately screwy video settings, permanently destroying everybody's monitors. At that time, getting malware onto a Windows machine was fairly trivial (compared to how difficult it is today, if that puts things in perspective).
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I disagree, the PC is sold as a general purpose computing device. The iPhone is not. Apple is under no obligation to build in hardware cut-outs to prevent damage done by you subverting the ones they might have put into the software.
If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then if I reprogram my car's engine controller so the rev limiter doesn't kick in at the preset value, then redline it everywhere the manufacturer is on the hook for when my engine blows up?
I agree with your last statement though, warranties should be void unless you have done something to damage it. Apple warrants that the consumer device they sold you will work as advertised. If you junk the OS, its not an iPhone anymore you damaged it by removing the OS, your warranty is void. Its shitty but you can vote with your feet, millions already haven't.
They don't warrant the hardware and the software separately, they warrant the device.
Invaders must die
This reminds me of a user who purchased a main board from me when I had my shop open to the public. It was about the time the AMD slot (not socket) A's were in fashion if that helps date it. He was demanding that I replace it because it was obviously defective. When I asked how, he said that when he was putting the memory in, he heard a zzzttsss noise. He said the screen went blank and it hasn't worked since (think about that). He said he was grounded and all and it shouldn't have done that.
Anyways, I told him I would attempt to help with the manufacturers warranty but I wasn't going to exchange it. I suggested he should have a different story when talking to them like "it never did anything at all" and "yes, I'm A+ certified and know what I'm doing". HE was pissed and couldn't figure out why I wouldn't let him return it to me, even after I pointed out that there was only the manufacturer's warranty for any parts you install yourself and showed him the sign right on the register where he paid for it stating that.
He wanted the rope, the ability to hang himself, then bring the rope back after he cut it down and exchange it for a new one. I think some people just don't think things through.
The general thread running through the ruling, re: DVD encryption cracking / jailbreaking smartphones / firmware tinkering etc. is the word "noncommercial"
So whilst (commercial sale of) console mod chips themselves might be an issue, softmodding or soldering your own console (or heck, even your DRM'd print cartridges) to "jailbreak" it for private noncommercial use is something that naturally should be deemed OK going forwards. It's possible to extract this further to see that one day private noncommercial copies of copyrighted works (e.g. DVDs ripped to your HTPC setup) will be solidly (and not wishey washily as it is now) enshrined in law.
Though I'm sure it'll take some more kicking and screaming through the courts to get there the broad point at least now has a very solid precedent.
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
You are correct, the ruling states however that unlocking a phone whilst under contract is an issue of contract law, and that anti-copyright-theft law can not be used to prevent it, so on a *technical* level, it's legal to unlock your phone
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
doesn't the purchase of an i-phone/pod/pad/whatever indicate a certain herd mentality? the apple marketing dept has insured you get the feeling of being a free thinking, independent consumer, but with the safety of numbers. if the app doesn't come from apple, how can it be good or viable? the price paid for an apple product indicates there is no economic incentive to jailbreak. so the rebels must comprised of gift recipients/award winners, etc. i'm sure apple will have a plan - expiration on gift products?
Okay, I've very confused here.
I've never heard of the Apple warranty people care about jailbreaking, period, and I'd like some documentation of this. (They do care about unlocking, but that's not the same thing.)
Well, it's a lot like baking a file in a cake, except that the cake is a lie (unless it’s a cheesecake, in which case the cake is a pie), so it's pretty much just a file.
as profplump has told you, boot watchdogs / hardware jumpers / backup firmware on ROM are all part of a WELL DESIGNED system with which to deal with firmware failures, whether caused by the user or otherwise. if you prefer to buy a product that is shoddily, cheaply built without any of these fail-safe features because it is cheaper, smaller or more lightweight, or for any other reason, you really have no reason to complain if you fuck it up and it stops working and these failsafes would have prevented that problem.
The problem is, they don't want to sell the phone to you if you're going to modify it. They want to sell a product that they know what it's lifecycle is going to be so they can predict further revenue from it and support costs. If they didn't lock down the phone then faster than you can say jailbreak, someone is going to write malware for the phone and disguise it as a game, or pr0n viewer. Then apple is stuck dealing with the support nightmare. By locking it down, they can call the phone secure and if you WHATEVER-BREAK the phone, then you're on your own.
Personally I don't see why apple doesn't just do a checksum on some key operating system files before they give people new versions of iOS. If you're running a kernel or bootloader that doesn't match a list of known-good, then you don't get to upgrade. Eliminating the upgrade path for jailbreakers seems like a good options for apple. Hell, have it 'accidental' brick all the phones, it's not apple's fault that some hacker modified a key system call and now it won't boot.
The other option around all this 'it's mine crap' is they should just call it what it is, a lease. You pay $99-$299 up front, and you pay $xx/month for 24 months. After that, do what you want.
Why wouldn't you expect to get warranty support? You don't void your automobile warranty by using another brand of air filter, or not having the plug and wires replaced in a dealer-approved garage, or any number of otherwise reasonable things. So why should installing a 3rd-party app void your warranty?
Yes, the CRTs were defective by design. Note that the manufacturers recognized that and have fixed it ages ago.
performing a tightrope act without a net draws a bigger crowd. why? MORE POTENTIAL. if you want to plug an extra emergency backup chip in your phone, that will draw power ALL THE TIME, then go ahead... that is also not illegal. i'd rather have a smaller phone with a longer battery life.
IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO NOT ADD FAILSAFES. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO BREAK YOUR PHONE. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO FILL THE PROGRAM MEMORY WITH CUSTOM SOFTWARE THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHTS TO, AND SET THE PROGRAM COUNTER TO BEGIN EXECUTING IT.
the only thing i'm forced to complain about is your idiocy, MORON.
Your post was *meow*.
There should still be some kind of way to reboot the device in minimal working condition if the need arise.
yours was unnecessary.
About time :-) /D