EFF Asks To Make Jailbreaking Legal For All Devices

Diggester writes "Jailbreaking is a way to break off from the limitations imposed by the mobile vendor to download additional applications and themes etc. which aren't available otherwise. It provides root access to the device by use of custom kernels. It is common with the iDevices and has been rendered legal by the efforts of EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) in July 2010. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is now determined to make Jailbreaking legal for all the consumer electric goods. They have asked the US copyright office to declare it legal to jailbreak all the devices like smartphones, tablets, gaming consoles etc. no matter who the vendor is. The aim behind this plead is to change the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which prohibits such an access to the user."

Comments

PC analogy

[cyachallenge]

Imagine if it were illegal to reformat your harddrive on your PC.

Re:PC analogy

[Rinisari]

Imagine if you could only put Campbell's Soup in your soup bowl, or only put Folgers coffee in your Folgers-branded coffee mug.

If there's no reason for a restriction on what I can do with the hardware I buy, other than restricting consumer choice, there's no reason for the restriction. If I can make something do what it wasn't intended to do, and it's not negatively harming others, why should I be deprived of my right to make it do that thing it wasn't meant to do?

Re:PC analogy

[sohmc]

This is kind of like the Linus Torvald's view of things.

I think you should allow users to be able to do whatever they want to their devices. But I think that those companies should have the right to void the warranty if they do.

That way, if some dumb user jailbreaks his phone because he thought he could be cool, but royally messed it up, he can't go crying to the manufacturer for coverage.

Re:PC analogy

[Synerg1y]

That's in place already. Jailbreaking = insta void.

Re:PC analogy

[ecorona]

Because they want to charge you for the privilege. Remember, corporations are machines built to make money and that is all. They will fight anything that reduces the amount of money they can make no matter how completely idiotic and absurd it is. Politicians have already sided with corporations, democrats and republicans alike. Here's hoping judges are not as easily bought off and will have some common sense.

Re:PC analogy

[chargersfan420]

I don't agree with my position, but to play Devil's advocate here...

it's not negatively harming others

In the case of geohot and the PS3 hacking, Sony might argue that it is harming their business. Because corporations are people, after all.

Re:PC analogy

[Moryath]

I don't give a crap about the warranty.

At the same time, I bought *HARDWARE*. Sony shouldn't be able to tell me that I can't load custom firmware on it with the ability to run Linux, for example. The PS3 would make a GREAT media center to stream from my TV recording box, save that I can't load a custom firmware package for Linux AND keep the ability to run current games.

I only wish we could get it a step further and actually make it illegal for companies like the phone companies to do what they've done - sure it's "legal" to root your phone, but they keep trying to make it *impossible* by fucking with the shipped/official firmware.

Re:PC analogy

[BitterOak]

Imagine if it were illegal to reformat your harddrive on your PC.

It's not really a fair comparison. When you buy a hard drive, you are generally buying the actual hard drive. But when you buy software, you aren't usually buying the software, but rather a license to use the software, and the license can include terms which may prohibit modification of the software or using a modified version of the software.

Many of the hardware devices we buy, such as smart phones and video game consoles, contain a good deal of sophisticated software or firmware (which is just software stored in some form of semi-permanent storage, such as flash memory or ROM chips). When you buy such a device, you are buying hardware, as well as a license to use the included software or firmware often under the condition that the software not be modified by the end user. This is where many of the physical good analogies break down.

Re:PC analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like modyfing something with a hammer is. Except hammers are legal in the US, unlike jailbraiking, and both void the warrant.

Re:PC analogy

[Ossifer]

Only within reason. Jailbreaking can't be the cause of say, physical manufacturing defects. The warranty should still apply in these cases.

Re:PC analogy

[Narcocide]

Because lots of people with more influence and money than you have spent decades convincing the government that allowing you freedom of mixing&matching your coffee and mug brands could potentially cause a direct reduction on their maximum possible profits. You see, they've furthermore convinced said government that this potential reduction constitutes you harming them. Since you just inferred you agree that people shouldn't be allowed to harm others while using their consumer goods in an unintended fashion they've invalidated your argument in favor of allowing this type of behavior using an extension of your very own reasoning. Sucks huh?

Re:PC analogy

[kelemvor4]

Imagine if you could only put Campbell's Soup in your soup bowl, or only put Folgers coffee in your Folgers-branded coffee mug.

If there's no reason for a restriction on what I can do with the hardware I buy, other than restricting consumer choice, there's no reason for the restriction. If I can make something do what it wasn't intended to do, and it's not negatively harming others, why should I be deprived of my right to make it do that thing it wasn't meant to do?

There is a reason and it is a simple one. Apple (and their co conspirators) would make less money.

Re:PC analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

In the case of geohot and the PS3, I say Fuck Sony. They played bait-and-switch with console features, after they falsely advertised "Linux" and only delivered a stripped down version without full hardware access.

What harmed their business is the fact that they're a bunch of fucking soulless, criminal asshats who pulled those two things, then let their customers' personal information into the wild. Fuck them.

Re:PC analogy

[Radres]

Slashdot: home of bad car^H^H^H desktop computer analogies?

Re:PC analogy

[bhagwad]

That's just legalese. This nonsense about "licensing" is just an excuse to prevent people from doing things with stuff they bought.

Re:PC analogy

[Moryath]

When you buy such a device, you are buying hardware, as well as a license to use the included software or firmware often under the condition that the software not be modified by the end user. This is where many of the physical good analogies break down.

Thus, it should be my RIGHT to install an open source version of software, any software OS or package, that runs on the device.

And it should be CRIMINAL behavior on the part of the asshat corporations, to interfere with this right.

Re:PC analogy

[viperidaenz]

Thats a kind-of where you're wrong, as much as I hate to admit Sony has a point. If you want to connect the hardware to their networks, they should be allowed to stop you running custom code. Also, although probably not the case now, but perhaps when it was first released they would have sold the hardware at a loss based on the fact that barring any illegal activity, the only way you can use the hardware is to purchase their 99% profit margin games. Phone again fall in to the same category. Buggy firmware could cause big problems to their networks, so restricting the ability to load custom firmware is in their best interests. Restricting what you can do with the official firmware is a different story. Perhaps it would bea good idea for devices designed to connect to providers networks to have two sets of firmware. A locked down layer to control and protect network access and the OS (although this is probably already done. I recall my days with HTC phones 5 years ago having separate radio firmeware bundled in the image that is transferred to the device)

Re:PC analogy

[MozeeToby]

Imagine if you change your own spark plugs and two weeks later the rear passenger wheel falls off. The manufacturer should have to show that what you did caused the problem, just like they have to with any other product. Now granted, if I try to overclock the processor to 2x its normal rate and melt the damn thing that's my own fault, but if I unlock WiFi tethering and get a row of dead pixels on my screen the two are almost certainly unrelated.

Re:PC analogy

[mcgrew]

That was entertaining, kind of like "damning with faint praise". What you're saying is that you're harming me because you won't give me money for nothing.

What's worse, considering the OtherOS nonsense, it's like my selling you a car, removing the tires, then claiming you harmed me because you replaced the tires.

Re:PC analogy

[frank_adrian314159]

If I can make something do what it wasn't intended to do, and it's not negatively harming others, why should I be deprived of my right to make it do that thing it wasn't meant to do?

Short answer - You shouldn't.

A slightly longer answer - In a perfect world, where you couldn't hurt others, you shouldn't.

A longer, but probably more realistic answer - Given that the network operators cannot absolutely secure their network and that rogue applications and third-party OSes have the potential to wreak havoc on their networks and other subscribers, it is in their best interests to keep the same off their network. Because the vendor of the device needs to provide support, a minimal set of software configurations will lower support costs. More importantly, rogue apps having access to the OS level of a device may very well allow the device to operate out of specification, causing interference to other devices (i.e., damage to their users) around them. I know that you are the exception and would never let your device's code have a bug but, frankly, with the level of software assurance anywhere, I sure wouldn't trust you.

So, yeah, most of these systems were designed to keep you from changing things for monetary reasons. But they also keep you from using your programmable RFI generator from f*cking up my access. So I'm not so hot to change that, if you know what I mean.

Re:PC analogy

[viperidaenz]

It can be the cause of stressing components past the design limits. If the original firmware limited tx power to 50% due to thermal design and the custom firmware ran it at 100% and components failed, whos fault is it? What if the charging circuit was software controlled and the custom firmware wasn't set correctly for the manufactures design and the battery exploded, killing the cute little lolcat sitting next to it?

Re:PC analogy

[MozeeToby]

I gave you money, you gave me a product. If I buy a book, the publisher can't sue for me for crossing out the paragraphs I don't like and writing in the margins and nothing the publisher puts in the front cover of the book will convince me otherwise. What I do with the information contained in the product I purshase is my business, so long as I'm not distributing those changes to other people the makers of the software should have absolutely no standing to say what I do with it.

Re:PC analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I guess you should've published that documentation. I don't expect you to support me.

I do however, expect you not to actively sabotage me by including subpar components that ruin running it in the way a reasonable person would expect. Unfortunately, that tends to mean "I expect to be able to get 100% output"

And until you publish an API manual saying otherwise, I'm going to assume that you meet the warranty of merchantability and fitness for the purpose sold and advertised.

That means I'm turning it up to 100% and it better not break.

Re:PC analogy

[Moryath]

Thats a kind-of where you're wrong, as much as I hate to admit Sony has a point.

What point might that be?

If you want to connect the hardware to their networks, they should be allowed to stop you running custom code.

I don't give a flying FUCK about their networks. Since the Sony break-in, I've had my box firewalled off from their fucking network, and it's never going near them again.

Also, although probably not the case now, but perhaps when it was first released they would have sold the hardware at a loss based on the fact that barring any illegal activity, the only way you can use the hardware is to purchase their 99% profit margin games.

I fail to see where shitty planning on their part constitutes an obligation on my part to buy ANYTHING from them. I bought a piece of hardware. If they sold it at a loss, and I don't buy "enough" games from them to make up for it, then they don't have enough games worth buying. There is no contractual obligation for me to buy anything else from them.

Phone again fall in to the same category. Buggy firmware could cause big problems to their networks, so restricting the ability to load custom firmware is in their best interests.

And oddly enough, with phones, the FTC already ruled that the benefit to consumers to open the phones OUTWEIGHS the benefit to the phone carriers to "secure their networks" in that sense. So you're already wrong.

Re:PC analogy

[Iamthecheese]

And not using Brawndo is harmful to sports drink manufacturers.

Re:PC analogy

[Joe_Dragon]

so you to be like say Comcast you must a rent a PC (at high prices) say $20 /m for a basic pc going up to a $100+ for a pc with gameing hardware. from comcast to get on line and then it's all locked down and you can only rent apps and games from the comcast store.

Re:PC analogy

[compro01]

The Magnuson-Moss warranty act makes the legality of that questionable unless they can demonstrate that the jailbreaking caused or substantially contributed to the failure.

I just don't think anyone has bothered taking it to court, as it would really be cheaper just to buy a new phone than sue them over it.

Re:PC analogy

[JustSomeProgrammer]

Let's put it another way. A system is rated at a thermal level of X. Someone has found out you can usually safely run at 110% - 130% of X. You install firmware that advertises "BEST SPEEDS POSSIBLE!" that runs at a thermal level of 130% (best speeds possible). But your system is actually only ok at 108% of X because you got subpar system but you are still over the speced rating.

Also just to throw it out there, why should I support code I don't know anything about. If your system isn't running in a known configuration, I can't guarantee you have compete success with it.

Re:PC analogy

[forkfail]

Isn't that what Windows Secure Boot does on a practical level?

Re:PC analogy

[pclminion]

Sony shouldn't be able to tell me that I can't load custom firmware on it with the ability to run Linux, for example.

100% agreed.

I only wish we could get it a step further and actually make it illegal for companies like the phone companies to do what they've done - sure it's "legal" to root your phone, but they keep trying to make it *impossible* by fucking with the shipped/official firmware.

100% disagreed. Any such law would be immediately leveraged to attack open source, in ways that are unpredictable at the moment. We must never, ever have government dictating technological design.

Re:PC analogy

[viperidaenz]

don't give a flying FUCK about their networks. Since the Sony break-in...

Security has nothing to do with it. running trainers to cheat on games is more what I was thinking about.

If they sold it at a loss, and I don't buy "enough" games from them to make up for it, then they don't have enough games worth buying

Buying just one game would give them $50 more profit. Its fairly reasonable to expect someone to buy at least one game for a piece of hardware that legally can only be used to play said games.. Even if they don't make a loss, having people buying truck loads of consoles to run their linux clusters means fewer available for "normal" customers. All I'm saying is if this became more prevalent, there would be higher insentives to increase profit margins on hardware, increasing costs for everyone.

Re:PC analogy

[ksd1337]

And using it is harmful to the agriculture sector.

Re:PC analogy

[tlhIngan]

I don't give a crap about the warranty.

At the same time, I bought *HARDWARE*. Sony shouldn't be able to tell me that I can't load custom firmware on it with the ability to run Linux, for example. The PS3 would make a GREAT media center to stream from my TV recording box, save that I can't load a custom firmware package for Linux AND keep the ability to run current games.

Problem is, Joe Average doesn't know a thing.

It's why Apple has to resort to using crappy pentalobe screws - anyone with half a clue can easily get in, but Joe Average can't. And those with a clue don't ask for warranty support. But Joe Average will flub it up, and won't know better when they take the phone/computer back for warranty repair.

It's sad, but true.

And why is Joe Average doing this? Because his geek friend showed him something "cool" and told him it's easy. Joe Average googles and blindly follows the process to get the "cool" thing.

And people can be quite... creatively clumsy.

Hell, Joe Average can, with the proper instructions, install Linux and do all sorts of stuff. They won't understand what they're doing (they're just executing a set of steps), but they'll do it if in the end you get a "cool" result. Of course, then you or I will be called to fix their PC because they want to return to Windows and their HOWTO wiped their drive.

Re:PC analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

then maybe that's the problem.. this fake ownership bullshit needs to die. if I buy something it's mine to do with as I please. if the seller doesn't like it, then don't sell it.

Re:PC analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

ts fairly reasonable to expect someone to buy at least one game for a piece of hardware that legally can only be used to play said games

Except that some people bought it as a BluRay player and others bought it as a cheap cell development platform (remember Other OS?). It's fairly reasonable to expect a company to leave any options that were advertised on the hardware that they sold instead of doing the old bait and switch.

Re:PC analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

a piece of hardware that legally can only be used to play said games

WTF are you talking about? Sony advertised the PlayStation as being able to run Linux. What country does have a law which says "a PlayStation can only be used to play games on?"

Re:PC analogy

[ghjm]

It needs to be more sophisticated than that.

For example, in the automotive industry, you DO NOT void your warranty (no matter what the dealer tries to pull on you) by installing a K&N air filter. But you DO void your warranty by reboring the cylinders and putting in oversized pistons. This is all regulated and the manufacturers don't get to just decide you void your warranty if you sneeze inside the car, the way computer industry manufacturers do.

What we need here is common sense regulatory involvement. Apple needs to be told to quite the ridiculous arms race and just let 0.01% of people run weird software on their hardware - just like GM needed to be told that bolt-on upgrades don't void the powertrain warranty.

Re:PC analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing about copyright gives them the right to prevent me from modifying their copyrighted products for my personal use. They merely have the ability to keep me from making a copy for commercial purposes.

The license BS has got to go, it doesn't work for books, movies, music, or anything else really. Software is not some special snowflake in this regard.

Re:PC analogy

[viperidaenz]

and the code you run on the device after you've jailbroken it has complete control of the connection to the network...

don't be surprised if jail breaking becomes common place they block every jailbroken phone from their network and require a termination fee or a new phone to be purchased. How else are they going to run carrieriq software to sell your information?

Re:PC analogy

[hedwards]

Typically in cases like that it would likely wind up as a class action suit. And you'd still get basically nothing, if you're lucky you would get some trinket which is of little value to you several years later.

Re:PC analogy

[Surt]

Loss leader hardware consoles are a problem for the gaming industry, not a benefit. Consumers would be much better off if that were illegal.

Re:PC analogy

[Xenx]

The issue with this is that in the US, most of the big carriers don't have separate pricing for non-subsidized phones.

Re:PC analogy

[hedwards]

Yes, I can do whatever the fuck I want with things that I buy. That's the purpose of ownership. Now there are a small number of things that the government tells me I can't do with my property, but those are typically things which affect other people.

If Sony doesn't like people doing what they will with the hardware, then they have the option of not selling it. They can rent it to people or they can withdraw completely from the market. They can't have it both ways either they're selling it or they aren't. Selling a unit but retaining ownership rights is fraudulent to say the least.

Then again, you're a troll so kiss my ass.

Re:PC analogy

[jedidiah]

No. That's not reasonable at all. That kind of thing should be explicitly illegal along the lines of other forms of network neutrality that should be enforced. Sony's network is not small enough and private enough such that it should be able to skirt the kinds of rules that meatspace public accomodations have to follow.

"Their network" is a public space, same as a mall.

Re:PC analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

A very old and tired argument, I know, but there is just nothing in nature of the transaction which even suggests this might be true. Watch someone buy a book and watch someone buy software -- everything about the two transaction is exactly the same. In both cases, it looks and seems like they just bought a copy. This is a very old and proven and conventional sort of transaction. Those who assert that something inside a black box -- which might not ever even be seen by the purchaser -- causes the purchase to not have really happened, are arguing for something amazingly radical.

On top of that, it is common for even the copyright holders to assert that the software can be used without a license. (Ever heard of Linux?) You can say that those copyright holders are wrong (i.e. the sentence in the GPL which says you can use the software without agreeing to the GPL is merely a matter of opinion, and it happens to be wrong), but it's definitely strong evidence that the industry has NOT somehow united in fighting for compulsory you-can't-say-no licensing. And if it happens to be correct, then it's evidence that agreeing-to-EULAs isn't normal and expected, when someone thinks they're buying software.

Another wrench thrown into the whole mix, is that sometimes the point of jailbreaking is to delete the software that comes with the device. If you agree to a EULA which says you're not allowed to delete the software, in order to secure permission to use the software, and then you violate the EULA by deleting the software, then the consequences are .. you no longer have permission to use the software? Ok! Um, what just happened there? ;-)

Re:PC analogy

[jedidiah]

> What if they sold you a soup bowl for less than the cost to make it?

That's too bad then.

That doesn't give a corporation the right to strip an individual of all of their personal property rights.

Don't do potentially stupid things if you can't handle the consequences.

Re:PC analogy

[steelfood]

The point still stands. When you buy a phone, you're buying the hardware in addition to the software.

Which means that you should be able to swap the software loaded into the hardware at your pleasure.

But that's not necessarily the jailbreaking issue. Jailbreaking is not, say, Rockbox. Jailbreaking entails swapping the software with certain restrictions for a 3rd-party modified form of the software that does not have the same restrictions. The modification of the software is really the core of the jailbreaking debate, not the loading of different software itself (though that needs to be, and IMHO is, concurrently addressed).

Re:PC analogy

[Microlith]

I've heard this argument before, and frankly it's a complete load.

Given that the network operators cannot absolutely secure their network and that rogue applications and third-party OSes have the potential to wreak havoc on their networks and other subscribers, it is in their best interests to keep the same off their network.

If this was true, then they would deny access to any device they didn't recognize. Yet the GSM networks are obligated to allow any compliant device on their network.

Because the vendor of the device needs to provide support, a minimal set of software configurations will lower support costs

Not relevant, since we're talking about an optional path.

rogue apps having access to the OS level of a device may very well allow the device to operate out of specification, causing interference to other devices (i.e., damage to their users) around them.

Which is a poor excuse at best, and already dictated by FCC regulations regarding radio emissions. Unsurprisingly, you generally can't alter the baseband radios that come in these devices and pretty much nobody is asking to do that.

So, yeah, most of these systems were designed to keep you from changing things for monetary reasons

I'd say they're all designed with that intention. Even Motorola's GSM and non-DROID devices are deliberately crippled, hell devices that don't even go on the cellular networks are crippled. The only reason for it is for planned obsolescence and control over the end user.

Re:PC analogy

[shentino]

Unless the EULA requires you to agree to binding arbitration...

Oh wait, Sony pulled that after they got sued for removing OtherOS didn't they?

Re:PC analogy

[chargersfan420]

Exactly. Or perhaps a better analogy would be handsfree Bluetooth.

"I bought this car because it has Bluetooth. It's not a feature every owner of this model will use, but it is one of the reasons I chose THIS car over other cars."

And then the manufacturer remotely bricks the Bluetooth because I got my oil changed somewhere other than the dealership.

Re:PC analogy

[shentino]

It's the companies fault for making their hardware so that anything other than official firmware bricks it.

Re:PC analogy

[shentino]

See Galoob v. Nintendo on whether or not private modification is actually illegal.

Re:PC analogy

[Rhacman]

Manufacturers already define what types of use are covered under warranty. While I don't think they should be allowed to tell you what to do with your hardware I do believe it is reasonable for them to declare what they will cover under warranty. Also, you seem to equate running any component at less than 100% capacity as "sabotage" or "subpar". It is common to use components that are more capable than necessary to meet design requirements but that doesn't mean that driving such components at capacity will be tolerated by the system as a whole. Additionally, such limitations may not be strictly for proper device operation but may also be required to adhere to safety and other legal regulations. For instance, FCC regulations as to which frequencies and transmit power levels are acceptable. Something like a laser pointer may in fact include components that intentionally limit the power of the output to 5mW to ensure the device complies with safety regulations. These requirements and limitations become your homework if you want to treat a device as a collection of parts rather than the system as defined by the manufacturer. The component datasheets and legal regulations are already out there, it isn't the device manufacturers job to reproduce them for you.

Re:PC analogy

[Surt]

Just look at the games on consoles. Vendor lock in has killed creativity in the industry.
The only bright spot is XBLA, and even there the censorship is a big problem.

Re:PC analogy

[viperidaenz]

Wrong. Especially if they took measures to prevent untested code from running on it. Unless you expect the manufacturer to implement additional hardware controls to anything that may be controlled by software, physically restricting the use of the device. Yeah, that'll keep hardware prices, power consumption and physical size down. Oh no theres a bug? Please smash your phone and we'll send you a new one because its cheaper than sending your old one back, replacing some chips on it, retesting and sending it back again.

Re:PC analogy

[arose]

When you buy a hard drive, you are generally buying the actual hard drive.

What if he bought a complete PC, with Windows 7 Starter and a non-upgrade copy of Ultimate (let's stay away from the "scary" hacker OS for this example),

Re:PC analogy

[Jibekn]

No, not its not. If software wasn't licensed, when you 'Bought it' you could make copy's and sell it legally.

Follow the logic with me, when you own something, you are allowed to do anything with it. That includes making copies(yes, that includes old style media like paintings, you just cant represent them as original when you sell them), you are also allowed to sell anything you own.

See why licensing is not, nonsense, and is absolutely required for a digital society?

Now, with that being said, I would gladly agree that our current licensing terms, agreements ToS's, EULA's etc leave alot to be desired, but to completely dismiss any need for them would make any and all software worthless, and I mean that literally.

Re:PC analogy

[Jibekn]

I agree, and they should have the right to permanently ban your hardware from accessing their network, including all game, firmware, and dashboard updates, dlc and app stores.

Re:PC analogy

[jc42]

We must never, ever have government dictating technological design.

Heh. You're a bit late with that suggestion. Even the least competent investigation will quickly turn up the fact that around 99% of the money that paid for the development of first the ARPAnet and then its successor the Internet came from the US government. Not just the US government, but the US Department of Defense. ;-)

If it weren't for government agencies "dictating technological design", we wouldn't have the Internet at at all. We'd just have a lot of corporate walled-garden private networks that didn't interoperate, and for which you and I couldn't develop software.

Actually, we still have such private walled-garden networks, but IP can be installed on top of almost all of them, so they don't really matter at the network layer and above. Except that the corporations keep trying to push us back into their gardens, where they control what can be developed and run, and we pay them for the "right" to run a limited set of apps on the only gadgets that they permit to be "sold" (actually leased) in our neighborhoods where they have monopolies.

Anyone with a grain of sense would want to see more government control of the communication systems. That's the only thing that has ever permitted an actual "market" of comm devices and software to develop.

Of course, we then have the issue of "Who watches the watchers?". But we do have centuries of experience dealing with that question. Much of the US's current problems with expanding walled gardens is due to our neglecting this issue and letting the corporate world buy the government regulators. But a lot of us are aware of this problem. The current topic is just one of many skirmishes in that particular ongoing battle.

Re:PC analogy

[Endo13]

You bought a playstation 3 which comes with an OS on it. You did not buy the hardware in the unit because it is not sold separately. Its the same as buying an HP computer then bitching because they put ads and bloatware on it. Take it off but the recovery disks are going to contain the same bloatware should you restore it.

Completely irrelevant here. If I bought an HP PC the first thing I would do is format the HDD and remove all ties to HP, while replacing it with my own OS. This is exactly like buying any applicable device and jailbreaking it.

You also may not get to use services that HP has bundled into the OS once you remove that software.

That's fine, I don't want their services.

You cannot just do whatever the fuck you want with whatever the fuck you buy.

You absolutely can, as long as it's not breaking the law. Laws that prevent you from doing what you want even when it doesn't affect anyone else are bad laws and should be changed, which is what the EFF is trying to accomplish.

Also please note that it doesn't matter jack shit what Sony tells you you can or cannot do with their stuff.

The rest of your post is redundant nonsense.

The only thing Sony should be allowed to control is your connection to their servers. The reason they should be allowed to control this (even though cell carriers should NOT be allowed to control connections from jailbroken phones) is because their servers are not required to operate the devices. If you jailbreak a PS3 you are perfectly free to connect to the internet however you wish, you just should not be able to use Sony's online services. (Of course chances are, if you jailbreak a PS3 and throw your own OS on it you don't care about Sony's online services anyway.) This is entirely different from the cell phone situation, where blocking a jailbroken phone essentially renders it useless. The phone isn't just blocked from one set of servers, it's blocked from the entire internet.

Re:PC analogy

[grcumb]

It can be the cause of stressing components past the design limits. If the original firmware limited tx power to 50% due to thermal design and the custom firmware ran it at 100% and components failed, whos fault is it? What if the charging circuit was software controlled and the custom firmware wasn't set correctly for the manufactures design and the battery exploded, killing the cute little lolcat sitting next to it?

Good points. But what we're missing here is the potential for a 3rd party after market, similar to VARs and PC support businesses, who offer value-added services under their own warranty.

With vendor-locked devices, such a market can't easily exist, especially if they're hounded out of business by $VENDOR's lawyers.

But it should exist. More to the point it absolutely should have the right to exist. Because of that, I'm 100% in support of the EFF on this campaign.

Re:PC analogy

[bhagwad]

Interesting. What are your views on reselling a CD which you bought legally then?

Re:PC analogy

[cdrguru]

The Supreme Court decision on AT&T devices also had registration requirements for hardware that was designed by others to connect to the US phone network. And in no way can Sony's proprietary gaming network be compared to the US telephone network.

One worry in the 1970s was that people would connect things like large outdoor bells to the phone network that would draw too much ring current. Hence the "Ringer Equivalence Number" or REN that is required on all devices connecting to the phone network. There were other concerns as well and many of them well-founded. It turns out that with a lot of standards being published and some FCC guidance to manufacturers there hasn't been a publicized case where a mass-market device would screw up the phone network.

Cell phones? Well, we are still waiting to see what might happen. My guess is that someone will come up with a nifty set of firmware or app for a Android phone that will make their calls go through better, less likely to be dropped, etc. Or, just being able to listen in on some other phone's calls. Of course it does this at the expense of every other phone on that tower, but heck, who cares? Do you have any idea how long it would take to figure this out? Or what might be able to be done once something like this was out in the wild? The options might be pretty limited depending on exactly what was being exploited.

This is probably the biggest concern both the handset manufacturers and cell carriers have today. There is no doubt that it is going to happen, probably pretty soon. And you can expect the response to be initially pathetic and then overwhelming - like Federal Marshals searching for phones with the right app/firmware. House to house. With guns.

Re:PC analogy

[viperidaenz]

I'm 100% in support of the EFF on this campaign.

Me too. But I also think manufacturers should have the right to void warranties and service providers the right to deny service if the device is nolonger being used as provided

Re:PC analogy

[cdrguru]

Your rights to modify the hardware and/or software need to stop at the point where it even potentially interferes with other's use of the network.

There is no logical reason why an exploit for cell towers cannot be found which would allow your calls and only your calls to go through. As the cell tower programming is dealing with a known entity it likely has as many back doors and security exposures as the phone network in the 1960s and 1970s did. Still. Blue boxes are illegal to own today and it is likely modified firmware for a cell phone is going to be put in the same status by some crafty hackers. I'd guess sooner rather than later.

Same thing goes for gaming networks. Your use of the hardware needs to be limited by what the gaming network allows. Now, can you take the gaming console and use if for something else? Sure, but only to the extent that it becomes impossible to connect it once again to the gaming network while it has modified firmware/programming.

Re:PC analogy

[Jibekn]

As long as you no longer retain digital or hard copies of the CD, it should be allowed, that falls into one of the many parts of the current licensing models I dont agree with, I believe that the license itself is something that is(should be) owned by the individual, and can(should) be transferable using any legal methods, If i want to trade a Windows XP Pro license i 'own' for a carton of eggs, I should be legally allowed to do so, and the corporations, in this case Microsoft, shouldn't be allowed to sell non transferable licenses, which they are currently in the habit of doing.

I guess in a way I'm for a hybrid model, which is realistically the way its always been done before the digital revolution, you dont totally 'own' the CD, because then you have the rights to copy it and sell the copies, but on the flip side, your license 'travels' with the CD itself, enabling you to resell/give/trade your license away.

Make any sense?

Re:PC analogy

[bhagwad]

Somewhat :)

Re:PC analogy

[TheInternetGuy]

That would be like only allowing Internet Explorer to view the Microsoft homepage.

Re:PC analogy

[cheekyjohnson]

should

Why? I don't really understand banning someone from playing online games (if cheating is that easy, then something is wrong, in my opinion), either, but why block them from accessing everything else? With playing an online game with a custom firemware, you might cheat (and, in my opinion, they should just ban people they've found to be cheaters rather than ban everyone with custom firmware), but what could you do with those other things (maybe I misinterpreted you) that could be deemed as 'harmful'?

Re:PC analogy

[cheekyjohnson]

when you 'Bought it' you could make copy's and sell it legally.

I... don't really have a problem with this.

Re:PC analogy

[shentino]

What if they make it flake out on purpose if you don't use their firmware?

That's a form of DRM.

Re:PC analogy

[russotto]

Many of the hardware devices we buy, such as smart phones and video game consoles, contain a good deal of sophisticated software or firmware (which is just software stored in some form of semi-permanent storage, such as flash memory or ROM chips). When you buy such a device, you are buying hardware, as well as a license to use the included software or firmware often under the condition that the software not be modified by the end user. This is where many of the physical good analogies break down.

They don't break down. The licensing argument is bull manure. You cannot buy a ROM or a flash memory containing software without buying a copy of the software contained therein, by the operation of 17 USC 101.

Re:PC analogy

[viperidaenz]

That's an entirely different scenario

Re:PC analogy

[marcello_dl]

> Thats a kind-of where you're wrong, as much as I hate to admit Sony has a point. If you want to connect the hardware to their networks, they should be allowed to stop you running custom code.

No, they should prevent illegal operations by securing their network.
Securing a host by messing with clients is like leaving your car with the keys inside and handcuff all the neighbourhood so they don't steal it.
THEIR network, YOUR hardware.

I guess the orwellian slavery is freedom is making inroads.

Re:PC analogy

[Belial6]

Well, that is the rational that AT&T used to dictate that you couldn't attach your own telephone handset to their wired phone network.

Re:PC analogy

[Ihmhi]

...why CAN we? That's the more important question. Why hasn't any PC company tried to pull this shit yet?

Re:PC analogy

[shentino]

Not require them to test it, merely not allow them to make it fragile for the express purpose of locking out everything but their own firmware.

Re:PC analogy

[viperidaenz]

Where I'm from you're not allowed to connect anything to the phone network that doesn't have a Telepermit Operating modified wireless devices in a controlled spectrum might also be a violation of laws all around the world...

Re:PC analogy

[Belial6]

There seems to be a very good chance that you are the guy you are describing. If you think it takes "proper instructions" to install Linux, you are so far out of the loop that you would need to be Joe Average's slow brother. The fact that you think there is anything wrong with someone who isn't above average loading Linux and doing all sorts of cool stuff, you would be Joe Average's slow brother with an attitude.

Re:PC analogy

[xero314]

Isn't this exactly what a licensing agreement is, rental of a product. In the case of a game console, the hardware is not licensed but the software, including the firmware, is. The games are also licensed. So as long as you accept that these products are licensed (I'm not going to get into an argument over that), then you see that the only restriction is that you can not use the licensed software in violation of the license. I would be willing to be that you would find out that this is the actual reality of things. You can put what ever software you want on the the console, but you can't use any of the original software or software licensed to run in conjunction with the original software.

The typical license is simply a rental of indefinite duration that cost one flat fee and can be revoked according to the terms of the argeement.

Re:PC analogy

[xero314]

Completely irrelevant here. If I bought an HP PC the first thing I would do is format the HDD and remove all ties to HP, while replacing it with my own OS. This is exactly like buying any applicable device and jailbreaking it.

If you could figure out how to replace all the licensed software on the device, or at least any whose licensing agreement you would be violating, then you can go ahead and do the same thing with the so called locked down devices. Assuming you bought an iPhone without agreement to any contract about the hardware (I do not own one so I don't know what they have you sign), all you have to do is remove every last trace of apple software and then you can install anything you want (Oh you might also have to figure out how to do that without violating the DMCA).

Or, and this is a really novel idea, you don't purchase products from companies that would like to restrict how you use their products.

Re:PC analogy

[pclminion]

If it weren't for government agencies "dictating technological design", we wouldn't have the Internet at at all.

Please identify the laws you are referring to. You are implying there are legal requirements in place dictating the technological underpinnings of the Internet. Was there some "TCP/IP Act" I didn't hear about?

Re:PC analogy

[mug funky]

you seem to have forgotten what "ownership" is.

fucking with our shit is any owner's right. even if it breaks in the process.

i would only make exceptions for things that involve hazardous materials, but still, warnings should be sufficient (ie "OPENING THIS WILL KILL YOU AND HALF YOUR STREET")

Re:PC analogy

[Belial6]

Wow. Modems are illegal in your country?

Re:PC analogy

[Pfhorrest]

They can rent it to people [...] [E]ither they're selling it or they aren't. Selling a unit but retaining ownership rights is fraudulent to say the least.

This is somewhat tangential, but I'm fond of harping on the practice of rent (mostly focused on other contexts) for exactly the reasons you describe here: either you sell something, and it's no longer yours and you have no rights in it and whoever you sold it to can do whatever they want with it for however long they like; or you don't sell it, and it's yours and nobody else has any rights in it and you can exclude anybody from using it however you like whenever you like. Isn't rental in general precisely "Selling a unit but retaining ownership rights", and doesn't the fraudulence of that speak against the practice? In other words, if Sony et al kept doing exactly what they're trying to do now and just called it "rental" instead of "purchase", how would that make it any better?

Re:PC analogy

[hawkinspeter]

Sony explicitly advertised the original PS3 as allowing "OtherOS" installs alongside using it as a console with access to the gaming network.

Re:PC analogy

[chrismcb]

Thats a kind-of where you're wrong, as much as I hate to admit Sony has a point. If you want to connect the hardware to their networks, they should be allowed to stop you running custom code. Also, although probably not the case now, but perhaps when it was first released they would have sold the hardware at a loss based on the fact that barring any illegal activity, the only way you can use the hardware is to purchase their 99% profit margin games.)

While I agree with you about accessing Sony's networks, I disagree on your other point. If Sony wants to sell product A at a loss, with the hope that you'll purchase product B, and you purchase A but not B. That is Sony's problem, not yours. Just because you bought A doesn't mean you will buy B. Perhaps you want product A for ONE game, or perhaps you buy used games only. Or maybe you'll just set the product A on a shelf and look at it. I don't think Sony (or the government) has a right to tell you how to use product A. Of course they have a right to not allow you on their network, but they don't have the right to tell you you can't turn your product into a fishbowl (how many macs were made into fishbowls?) or use it to do something else product A wasn't intended for.

Re:PC analogy

[chrismcb]

You have an odd idea of what constitutes profit, if you think any one unit of one game generates $50 in profit for the whole supply chain let alone for Sony itself.

If a game sells for $50, then guess what? The entire supply chain will earn a net profit of $50. Or do you think some of that money goes into the garbage bin? Sure the store that sells it pockets a chunk, Sony pockets a chunk, the company that burned the DVD makes some money. The company that sells the label to the DVD company makes a few cents, and so on.

Re:PC analogy

[chrismcb]

Except malls, while public spaces, are private property*. Malls enforce all types of rules and are free to make anyone leave if they choose to.

*At least around here. For all I know there may be publicly owned malls somewhere else.

Just because they enforce it, doesn't mean it is legal. And they aren't "free to make someone leave." While they can ask you to leave, and perhaps have you arrested for trespassing, if they MAKE you leave, you could have a decent lawsuit on your hands.

Re:PC analogy

[dkf]

Unless the EULA requires you to agree to binding arbitration...

That would be a good example of a clause that I'd expect to be against local law and so be ignored by courts.

Re:PC analogy

[Vlado]

On the other hand if you can find something to do with the device, that would be positively harming others...

Re:PC analogy

[Catiline]

But when you buy software, you aren't usually buying the software, but rather a license to use the software

What dirty, dirty, lies! I can tell you for a fact* that I have never once personally licensed software despite purchasing several valid copies. I have four reasons for saying this:

— First, having a debugger installed on my PC means I can modify the installer [while running] to show no EULA at all, so further proof is required I have agreed to whatever blatherskite the software publisher is trying to push.
— Second, I have never been presented the EULA terms before paying for software, so all claims the transaction was not a sale occur ex post facto.
— Third, I have never given my money directly to the software publisher, but to a retailer such as GameStop, Amazon, or Best Buy, so the publisher becomes a "third party" to this transaction and lacks any legal standing to decide its' status.
— Finally, because US copyright law allows me to make copies as "an essential step in the utilization of the computer program" and one copy as a backup (see Title 17 section 117), I have a pre-existing right to install the software; the typical EULA therefore grants no quid pro quo to me and therefore is contractually void.

Disclaimer: This is not legal advice, I am not your lawyer, and in fact I am not a lawyer at all! I do play one on ... I mean, work with them every day, and several of them have agreed that the above arguments are strong enough that certain other people would lose sleep at night should I ever find cause to argue them in a courtroom.

[[*: This is hyperbole, really, although I suppose you could say it is "pending legal review". I don't feel the need to go beyond what copyright law permits... and that's pretty much what a typical EULA asks anyway. Until there's sufficient harm in the divergence between my interpretation and the demands in the EULA for any software I have purchased, I have no reason for me to actually test these arguments in a court of law. So far I've skirted this by avoiding really problematic publishers, but I fear the day of testing is fast approaching.]]

Re:PC analogy

[VortexCortex]

MALWARE EXISTS.

There. Your arguments are now invalid. The malware doesn't void your warranty, and can do whatever the hell it wants.

Please, keep pretending that infinite banana you eat for breakfast each day isn't Satan's cock.

Freedom. Security. Decide.

Re:PC analogy

[whereiswaldo]

What if the coffee cup cost $100 to make but was sold for only $5 on the assumption that the money the buyer spends in Folgers coffee would make up for the cost over time?
Then people start growing their own coffee and using the cup to drink it. Now Folgers is losing $95 per coffee cup.

Is that not one of the arguments that device makers use?

Re:PC analogy

[Just Some Guy]

No, not its not. If software wasn't licensed, when you 'Bought it' you could make copy's and sell it legally.

Bullshit. I own books but don't get to legally make and sell copies of them. I own DVDs but don't get to legally make and sell copies of them.

Follow the logic with me,

Too late.

when you own something, you are allowed to do anything with it. That includes making copies(yes, that includes old style media like paintings, you just cant represent them as original when you sell them),

Copy. Rights. Owning a copy of a work doesn't give you any legal right to sell duplicates of it.

you are also allowed to sell anything you own.

That's correct. There is no moral reason why I shouldn't be allowed to sell a copy of software that I bought but no longer need.

Re:PC analogy

[Jibekn]

Books are literally the only exception, and theres specific laws that protect them, but even those laws weren't needed until the printing press. You ARE allowed to make a copy, of any piece of artwork, and as long as you sell it as a copy, its legal.

In fact, some artists make a nice living off reproduction art.

Re:PC analogy

[Jibekn]

Nothing harmful at all, its incentive not to fuck with the hardware, nothing else.

Ide rather they ban all potential cheaters. Im a consumer, I dont care about installing linux on a coffee maker, but I enjoy reading about it. The problem I have, and Ill use Geo as an example; what he personally does, I have NO problems with, if he wants to tinker, go nuts man, just don't teach the world how to cheat. The chain of events is almost always like this:

Uber Hacker figures out how to root the device
Uber Hacker shares this with script kiddy caliber hackers.
Script kiddies then develop apps/loader/method of playing pirated games.
Cheaters then take the combined knowledge and develop cheats for popular games, ruining the online environment.

People keep citing 'renting' consoles as the only method to control this stuff, I would literally sign up for that in a heartbeat and leave every, single other console behind. If they can promise me a cheat free environment, with the caveat that if they do get developed, there will be criminal charges for using them (modifying equipment you dont own) im so for that its not funny, and would never look back, only, ONLY for the anti-cheating..

Re:PC analogy

[grahamm]

Should they have to right to only allow 'official' games to played and prevent it running homegrown games or for third party independent developers to sells games to run on it?

Re:PC analogy

[DavidTC]

Warranties cover both hardware and software, and no software change is irreversible.

It is entirely reasonable for manufactures to not support changed software, and it's entirely reasonable for them to point out that a hardware problem is due to software changes. For example, if you overclocked your phone and it overheated and burst the battery, they don't have to fix that.

However, they don't get to use software changes to get out of actual hardware defects, which I think everyone agrees. Where people fall down is trying to allow them to get out of software issues.

No. What they should be able to do is reset the damn device's software. Period. If you take it in because it's acting weird and it's jailbroken, they should have to hook it up and reset it. In fact, that should be an option in the device itself.

Yes, I know right now that's hard, but most of that is because they'd have to also jailbreak past their own protections.

Devices should not be locked like that. They should instead be required to have basically the same 'tainting' mechanism as the Linux kernel. You flip a switch to allow you to run unapproved software, but the device manufacturer reserves the right to flip the switch back or even reinstall everything to do any software support. They don't have to deal with your weird stuff, but they don't have to deal with it by simply undoing it.

And, whenever possible, you should be able to do that yourself.

Right now they're using jailbreaking to get out of their warranty. That should not be allowed.

Re:PC analogy

[DavidTC]

There's an easy solution in this, and it's what companies have done forever:

Mark up the price of A to where it should be, but then include an instant rebate that you can use with proof of purchase of B. (Yes, that is technically a coupon for B, but it can be spun the other way. Or just go ahead and call it a coupon for B.)

Trying to rig it where people can't use something they buy except for one thing is insane.

Re:PC analogy

[DavidTC]

A software mod shouldn't even void the software warranty.

This entire concept is idiotic. Device manufacturers only support software they provide, we know that, we're not stupid. (I mean, they don't even support allowed third party software. If a game from the App Store is crashing on your iPhone, Apple's not going to 'support' that.)

So if someone who has modified that has a software problem and go to them, the solution is for them to put the original software back on. And then check for the reported problem.

I don't know where this bullshit 'Of course they have the right to void the warranty' came from. If I get a laptop, and install Linux over the Windows 7 it came with, and I can't run their 'BIOS update' program or something...they are entirely within their rights to insist I run that under the system they provided. They aren't within their rights to start yammering about me having voided the warranty with my Linux install after I reinstall Windows 7 off the restore disks and it still doesn't work.

If device manufacturers just provide some sort of way to reset devices back to factory settings, or simply had a way to do it themselves, none of this would matter. They do not do this...but they should be required to, by law, if you came in and asked for it. (And then they should obviously be required to fix any software problems that existed after that point.)

Instead, because the software is so locked down, it's probably just as complicated to unjailbreak the thing as to jailbreak it, and because no one is 'supposed' to jailbreak anything, no device has any way to easily undo it. (A factory reset really should be built in.) Likewise, almost none of them bother to separate their data from their code...a factory reset should just replace all the system stuff and leave the data alone, in a correctly-designed system.

Device manufactures gave me a warranty, and they will support whatever those warranty terms covered, regardless of what I've been doing with it in the meantime, unless they can demonstrate the thing I want fixes is damage from my 'misuse'. Which is very unlikely, but hypothetically possible. If some custom firmware is causing iPhones to explode, Apple's within their rights to say 'Fuck that, we're not fixing it.'. Otherwise, no. They have to put things back to a known state, and then look at it.

Re:PC analogy

[sourcerror]

Also, they always tried to sell Playstations as general purpose devices, as that way they had to pay less tax in Europe.

Re:PC analogy

[zeroshade]

I don't believe you know what a "net profit" is. The entire supply chain may earn a gross of $50, but then all the costs need to be taken out for each link in the chain based on their cut before you get anywhere near what the actual "net profit" is.

Re:PC analogy

[zeroshade]

Security has nothing to do with it. running trainers to cheat on games is more what I was thinking about.

I'm perfectly fine with the idea that if you hack the box and put custom firmware on it, they don't have to let you on their network. However, that should not preclude you playing games offline.

Re:PC analogy

[zeroshade]

You have only stated the argument as to why to disallow the ability to play games online if you put custom firmware on it. However, as long as you aren't playing multiplayer and thus the potential to cheat, why would you disallow DLC, Console Firmware Updates, Dashboard updates, game updates and apps? That makes no sense.

None of those should be affecting anyone but the person whose console is modded....

Re:PC analogy

[zeroshade]

When you buy a phone, you don't have to sign any contract about the hardware.

all you have to do is remove every last trace of apple software and then you can install anything you want (Oh you might also have to figure out how to do that without violating the DMCA).

Currently, specifically for iPhones, there is already an exception to jailbreaking iPhones for the DMCA.

Or, and this is a really novel idea, you don't purchase products from companies that would like to restrict how you use their products.

The hardware involved is good hardware, it would be more expensive and very very difficult to attempt to get the same thing without just purchasing the product. Why should the company have any right whatsoever to dictate how I use their product as long as I am not harming anyone else? Easy, they shouldn't

Re:PC analogy

[Rich0]

When you buy a hard drive, you are generally buying the actual hard drive. But when you buy software, you aren't usually buying the software, but rather a license to use the software

No, you're buying the software. Copyright law might restrict what you can do with it, but you own it fair and square. I give you cash, you give me a box - you just sold me something.

Software companies would of course disagree vehemently with me, but their opinions don't really matter. What matters is the law - and I don't see any law that establishes this kind of legal framework. The closest you'll get is contract law, but I don't see any meeting of the minds here either - if I'm not able to negotiate the content of a contract then it isn't binding.

Now, courts have tended to take a middle view, allowing software to be treated as being licensed in some cases. Ultimately this is what governs whether you end up in jail or not. I can still say that they're wrong though - and at least at present they won't arrest me simply for that. :)

Re:PC analogy

[zeroshade]

That's the device maker's problem. That doesn't give them any right to put a hole in my mug if I don't use their coffee.

Re:PC analogy

[Jibekn]

Again, like I said in the previous post, its all about discouraging the installation of custom firmware, nothing more, nothing less.

You think that someone should be able to use customized firmware, while retaining partial connectivity to the manufacturers support network, I think that as soon as you modify the device, you should forfeit any and all support of the product, and access of the network.

You get to be a tinkerer, or a consumer, you don't get both. (My Opinion)

Re:PC analogy

[cheekyjohnson]

Yes, and my question is, why would you think they should lose access to all of that? Why is custom firmware so bad that they lose access to unrelated services? I don't get it.

Re:PC analogy

[cheekyjohnson]

Really? A 'cheat-free' (it wouldn't be) environment is so important to you that you'd want them banning completely unrelated services for people with a custom firmware? If it's cheats you're worried about, why not just ban them from the game servers?

I guess it's your opinion, but why is cheating such a big deal that they can't just moderate their own servers and instead must ban everyone with custom firmware?

Cheaters then take the combined knowledge and develop cheats for popular games, ruining the online environment.

"Ruining the online environment"? Really? I've played games with a few cheaters. I don't cheat myself, but honestly, I couldn't care less. I guess you do, but it makes no sense to me. I find it as strange as the pedophile/terrorist hysteria. "Oh, no! There might be a cheater here! The game is ruined! Ban everything! I don't care if that guy with custom firmware isn't cheating! Ban him so that people will play how I want them to!"

Re:PC analogy

[Jibekn]

The potential to cheat in multiplayer, Yes I'm THAT against it, I would literally like to see criminal charges leveled against those who do. Is that going to happen? No, not its not, but my opinion is my opinion.

Re:PC analogy

[viperidaenz]

No, only to disallow access to their online network (or any other resource that costs the company money) to said games.

Re:PC analogy

[viperidaenz]

Unless they have that little green tick on them, I don't think you'll be put in jail but if anything happened to their network you'd find yourself in court being asked to pay a rather large repair bill. I'm yet to see a modem bought in a store (and online new zealand based stores included) that doesn't have the right permits though. New Zealand law states that "a person may only connect equipment to a network, or to anything connected to a network, that is owned or operated by an operator who has agreed to the connection" (S.106, Telecommunications Act, 2001). Telecom's agreement to the connection of any device is shown by its Telepermit label. In general, NO label means NO agreement. Telepermits are granted only to designs that meet Telecom's transmission and signalling performance requirements and which can be expected not to interfere with other services or users. In addition all products must meet New Zealand electrical safety requirements

Re:PC analogy

[cheekyjohnson]

Why unrelated services? The game servers are the only thing I understand. If you're worried about someone bypassing that, then they could do that for all the other bans as well. If you don't think they can, then why the ban on unrelated services? Game servers should suffice (these are only potential cheaters, remember?).

All I can say is that I hope your methods are never used.

Re:PC analogy

[Jibekn]

Its called a deterrent. However I don't think we will never see eye to eye on this, I can tell from your statement of confusion of my standpoint, which is fine, we're allowed to disagree.

But to give an example of another deterrent when the act doesn't match up with anything to do with the 'rights' taken away. Why do most nations not allow criminals to vote? Because the ability to vote used to be such a big deal, that taking it away was a great deterrent.

And to touch on your comment about moderating at the server level, again, its all about deterrents. People have a way of, well, being complete assholes when they've convinced themselves that they no longer care about something, so I would rather see a system that bans the whole bloody console, against all games and services. future and present when you break the rules. So you don't have little Jimmy who thinks to himself, "I don't give a rats ass if I get caught cheating and banned from Black Ops, BF3 is out next week"

"Well little Jimmy, you're a complete asshole for thinking that way, your parents failed you, and we don't want you on our network"
Because of that scenario, I feel that moderating at the server level is pointless. If people only cheat in the games they dont care about(more often this is the case, they're just being 'trolls'), banning them from those games doesn't carry any weight, kind of like fining a Buddhist monk, even if hes got the money, he would give it away for the asking, he doesn't care about the money, therefore taking it away is not a punishment.
Also, I'm not American, I don't live in a constant state of terrorism/pedophilia hysteria.

Re:PC analogy

[cheekyjohnson]

Why do most nations not allow criminals to vote?

I disagree with that, too, by the way. That's possibly making the entire nation lose an informed voter (criminals don't have to be idiots, after all).

But, as I said in my other comment, I still don't understand the ban of unrelated services. A deterrent for what? Wanting to mess with the software? Or actually cheating? A ban from the game server should be all that is necessary if that is what you truly want, yes?

"I don't give a rats ass if I get caught cheating and banned from Black Ops

So he gets banned and maybe causes a minor inconvenience for some players. Life goes on.

banning them from those games doesn't carry any weight

But it does remove them from that game. Good enough for me.

Also, I'm not American, I don't live in a constant state of terrorism/pedophilia hysteria.

Cheaters, terrorists, pedophiles, copyright infringers... it's all the same garbage to me.

I guess I'm just against banning something entirely because a few people might 'abuse' something. I don't want cars, knives, or guns banned, either. As you said, we probably won't ever agree.

Re:PC analogy

[Jibekn]

And that's a perfectly valid way of looking at things, I just don't agree with it.

"But it does remove them from that game. Good enough for me."

Its not good enough for me, I want them, and any like them removed from the service, and that's fundamentally where we disagree I think, you want just enough punishment to remove the symptom, I want to permanently remove the cause. At least that is how I see it, you probably see it very differently which is one of the great things about humans, if there's a possible viewpoint, no matter how outside the norm, someone on the planet has it.

Re:PC analogy

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

Your networks argument got me curious. What if someone built another network besides Sony's that any Playstation users could play on? Would this be illegal? I don't see why. They bought the hardware, there is no risk to Sony's network. So is the only roadblock to someone doing this due to convenience and interoperability issues (ignoring competitive feasibility)?

Re:PC analogy

[cheekyjohnson]

I guess that answers all of my questions, then.

I want to permanently remove the cause

Once people start modifying the firmware, that may become difficult.

Re:PC analogy

[viperidaenz]

Then its up to the entity that created the new network to determine its terms of use? The other road block is Sony would try and sue the pants off anyone who interferes with their revenue stream

Re:PC analogy

[Belial6]

So, what's the difference between a small hand held computer with a modem connecting to a phone network, and a larger portable computer with a modem that connects to a phone network? Your not suggesting that the size is what makes it legal are you?

Re:PC analogy

[viperidaenz]

I have no idea where you got that idea from but I think you're confusing a physical phone network with the internet

Re:PC analogy

[xero314]

As I said, I never purchased an iPhone, I just know that Apple does not sell them without a contract, I just have no clue what the contract says and wouldn't doubt that it includes details about the hardware.

The hardware involved is good hardware, it would be more expensive and very very difficult to attempt to get the same thing without just purchasing the product. Why should the company have any right whatsoever to dictate how I use their product as long as I am not harming anyone else?

So rather than purchase from a company who would allow you to use your hardware how ever you would like, you would instead give your money to a company that supports restricting your usage of the hardware. You might as well be sending money directly to the legal team that will be filing suit against your for violation of the EULA. Don't sound like a smart thing to me, but then again I haven't purchased a iPhone,though I'm sure I've given plenty to the Apple legal team through other purchases.

But while we're asking questions, what gives you the right to determine how a company choses to sell their products? If they chose to sell it under the conditions that that you can not modify it or otherwise change it, then they have every right to add that stipulation. It's not like you did not know this before purchasing the product, or at the very worst after reading the licensing agreement and still able to return the product. It's the companies product and they can chose to sell it to whomever under what ever conditions they chose (or at least they would if there was actually a free market*). If you don't like those conditions then don't by the product.

* This should not be taken as an endorsement of free market economy.

Re:PC analogy

[zeroshade]

But while we're asking questions, what gives you the right to determine how a company choses to sell their products?

I don't care how they sell their products. But the right of a consumer to do what they like with property they own is paramount. If I am purchasing something, then I own it. End of story. What gives a company the right to tell me how to use my own property?

It's not like you did not know this before purchasing the product, or at the very worst after reading the licensing agreement and still able to return the product.

Most people actually do not know this, because they don't do their research. It's a deceptive market practice, which I'm pretty sure most people see as bad. It's called consumer protections. Not only that, but I'd have to pay a restocking fee for returning an iPhone (not that I'd ever purchase any Apple product). So I'd be out money just because a company thinks it can tell me how to use my own property and I disagreed.

It's the companies product and they can chose to sell it to whomever under what ever conditions they chose (or at least they would if there was actually a free market*). If you don't like those conditions then don't by the product

People are going to buy it regardless. They don't do their research or don't realize the damage or just don't care. Either way, Apple is making money hand over fist despite this. With more and more manufacturers going this way where they are trying to control how you use hardware you purchase, eventually the option will be to either suck it up or don't use technology. That's not a choice at all. This is why a "pure free market" doesn't work. Companies will do whatever they can to milk more money out of consumers while restricting them in more ways. There's a reason why consumer protections exist and are necessary.

Re:PC analogy

[Belial6]

A cell phone is a computer with a modem that connects to a phone network. A desktop PC with a modem is a computer with a modem that connects to a phone network. The "You can't connect a computer with a modem to a phone network." is a BS argument, or it outlaws connecting a modem to the phone network.

Perhaps you are confused as to what a modem in a computer is.

Re:PC analogy

[viperidaenz]

Perhaps you are confused in that there are different laws involved with physical networks (you know, with copper) and wireless networks.
There are specific laws that cover physical phone networks.
There are also those that cover radio spectrum.
If you violate either law, you may be punished.

In your good old united states of america you've got the FCC. If you produce some RF that interferes with a cellular network, they might slap you with a hefty fine.
If you connected your mains to your phone line and damaged the phone network, you might also get slapped with a hefty fine.

The same thing goes, if you modify a device that was approved for sale and use and your modifications cause it to cause harm or damage to a network you might get slapped with a hefty fine.

Re:PC analogy

[Belial6]

Perhaps what you are confused about is that the device gets certified for use on either kind of network. Changing the software is clearly legal, as it is done on both kinds of networks all of the time. Nobody is talking about modifying the hardware. In both cases, we are discussing taking a Linux computer that has a modem, and replacing the OS.

Re:PC analogy

[viperidaenz]

The devices get certified for the network they connect to. Please tell me how it makes sense that because my cellphone is certified, I can connect it to my ADSL line? The firmware on a device like a phone is less abstracted than the OS on your PC. The firmware may also contain the firmware for the radio hardware. Your OS on your PC doesn't contain firmware for your modem (and save the old win-modems, neither do the device drivers). If you flash dodgy firmware on your cell phone and its radio no longer behaves like a wcdma radio should and creates harmful inteference you're breaking the law. wireless networks only work because all devices follow the spec they were designed for. If one device doesn't you can't just disconnect it from the network, it has the potential to disrupt service to any other device in range.

Re:PC analogy

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

There are alternative networks for PC games (I just saw GameRanger for one). I imagine this only happens for games that you don't have to pay extra to play online, and/or are pretty old. Do the game makers just not sue because they don't get revenue from online play?

Re:PC analogy

[virtualonliner]

Imagine if it were illegal to change the engine of your car, or the wheels.

Hey, someone had to do the car analogy.

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the US Copyright Office have the authority to make such a declaration? It seems to me like this would require an act of Congress or a declaration by the executive that they won't enforce the DMCA.

I'd have RTFA, but there's no href in that a tag.

Re:Question

[jedidiah]

They've already done it for the iPhone.

Re:Question

[Derekloffin]

They do. They were specifically given the right to add exemptions. I personally feel this is too much to ask though as it almost completely removes the teeth from the law when it comes to hardware copy protection. But, hey, I'm not in charge here.

Re:Question

[Microlith]

I personally feel this is too much to ask though as it almost completely removes the teeth from the law when it comes to hardware copy protection.

Wait, are you saying that the DMCA is in some way good?

Re:Question

[shentino]

And the exemptions expire automatically after 3 years.

Re:Question

[Tenebrousedge]

Yeah, the part where service providers aren't liable for shit people use their networks for* is pretty much universally agreed to be a Good Thing. The rest of the law had issues, but the enforcement issue seems to be rather intractable.

*Provided they respond to takedown requests.

Re:Question

[blueg3]

The Librarian of Congress is in charge of making exemptions to the DMCA.

Wasn't this already done?

[sohmc]

I vaguely recall a judge pretty much saying that jailbreaking is not illegal, but may void the warranty. I only remember due to the large number of jokes of how Steve Jobs was just loving it since he now didn't have to support millions of jailbroken phones.

Legislative action would be nice, but if it's already done, then let's not waste the time.

Re:Wasn't this already done?

[Derekloffin]

That was specific to mobile devices. This is asking for that right on pretty much every device.

Re:Wasn't this already done?

[Intron]

In the US it is illegal to require a consumer to only use the vendor's services in order to maintain your warranty (Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act)

Re:Wasn't this already done?

[AdamJS]

This is seeking to legitimize on most consumer devices rather than just phones.

An action that would more than piss off executives at companies like Sony.

Re:Wasn't this already done?

[intx13]

It appears that provision was intended to prevent "tie-in" sales. A Businessperson's Guide to Federal Warranty Law gives the example of vacuum cleaner manufacturers requiring branded vacuum cleaner bags to keep the warranty in effect.

Because the firmware on your phone is not (yet) a monetized product distinct from the phone itself, I suspect requiring a specific vendor's firmware does not fall afoul of the spirit of the law. Also note that the vendor is allowed to void the warranty because of damage caused by incorrect service or modification, which I would assume can be extended to damage caused by buggy third-party firmware.

Re:Wasn't this already done?

[arose]

Running software not vetted (and sold) by the manufacturer (read games) sounds like it would fit. But everything else seems to be thrown out of the window where copyright is involved. "No, you can't copy the snipped of code that is required for a cartridge to work in your printer even though the manufacturer intentionally crippled it that way, that's stealing!"

Re:Wasn't this already done?

[Rich0]

Fortunately that last bit has never been upheld in court. That doesn't mean that they can't sue you just the same and make you litigate it until your'e broke. In the US you can sue anybody for anything - full stop.

Re:Wasn't this already done?

[arose]

Fortunately that last bit has never been upheld in court.

It was upheld, overturned in appeal, but initially upheld nonetheless. But that revolved mostly around technical details of copyright law, I doubt it would have worked if the protections were as elaborate as with current generation consoles. They might be able to sue you, but if legislation would clearly and unquestionably favor interoperability you'd have a good chance of dismissing, instead of going trough several court battles with an uncertain outcome.

Re:Wasn't this already done?

[Rich0]

My understanding is that both in the case of printer cartridges and the Nintendo Gameboy courts have upheld even the copying and display of a logo if it was required to ensure compatibility.

In the latter case every cartridge had to contain code to make the Nintendo logo scroll up the screen. That code was actually then run. However, the cartridge wouldn't run if it wasn't present. So, to make the cartridge work you had to do what on its face would brazenly violate trademark law. The courts ruled that anybody can use the Nintendo logo in this fashion now and Nintendo can't do anything about it, since they set up the system that required it.

Of course, nothing fixes the fact that you still can get sued for just about anything and be forced to defend yourself in court no matter how much you are in the right.

Re:nice job slashdot editors

[Tyrannosaur]

the depressing part is, this was the 5th comment and the first one to actually try to RTA

Subsidized Devices

[Anonymous Coward]

The real problem is that devices are Subsidized. If you don't pay for all of the device, should the company be able to lock you in on the device? I think they should. If they can't then it becomes harder for them to make their money back and they will stop subsidizing devices. Once the contract is over, or if you paid full price, then you should be able to do whatever you want.

Re:Subsidized Devices

[tiberus]

Jail-breaking the device doesn't let you out of the contract. If I buy a phone from AT&T with a 2 year contract and jail-break it, I still have a two year commitment with AT&T for service. I don't believe that has any bearing on the fact that I bought (not leased) the device, regardless of what I paid for it. If they don't want me to break it, provide access to all the features on the device rather than greatly restricting it. Just don't see that phone subsidies (read, we pay to much for our wireless service contracts) are an issue at all.

Re:Subsidized Devices

[drb226]

The [mobile] devices are subsidized...by you. The ridiculously high monthly cost of a contract more than covers the cost of the device; astronomical cancellation fees pay for the device if you decide to jump ship. Also, this is about a lot more than just mobile devices.

Re:Subsidized Devices

[LordLucless]

The real problem is that devices are Subsidized. If you don't pay for all of the device, should the company be able to lock you in on the device? I think they should.

Why? You're still in a contract with them. In fact, it's even more beneficial to them if you jailbreak - you still have to pay them for their services, but if you go to another carrier as well, they don't have to provide them. Free money.

Re:Subsidized Devices

[Intron]

The real problem is that devices are Subsidized. If you don't pay for all of the device, should the company be able to lock you in on the device? I think they should. If they can't then it becomes harder for them to make their money back and they will stop subsidizing devices. Once the contract is over, or if you paid full price, then you should be able to do whatever you want.

The contract obligates you to maintain service for 1 or 2 years or else pay for the phone. Once you've signed the contract it's your phone. Hint: who's on the hook to repair it if it breaks?

Re:Subsidized Devices

[betterunixthanunix]

Once the contract is over, or if you paid full price, then you should be able to do whatever you want.

Where do I go to pay full price for a PS3?

Re:Subsidized Devices

[DriedClexler]

And none of them give you the option to buy the phone at full cost in return for lower payments for service.

Re:Subsidized Devices

[R3d M3rcury]

If I buy a phone from AT&T with a 2 year contract and jail-break it, I still have a two year commitment with AT&T for service.

And, you being the honest person that you are, would continue to pay that contract even though you no longer use the phone on the AT&T network.

You're a wonderful human being.

Me, being a far more evil person, would immediately stop paying my contract once I jail-broke my phone. What are they going to do? Slash my credit rating? Meanwhile, AT&T is still out the cost of my phone.

Re:Subsidized Devices

[R3d M3rcury]

[...] you still have to pay them for their services [...]

Suppose I don't. Suppose I just stop paying?

Re:Subsidized Devices

[LordLucless]

Um, same thing as if you don't pay any other bill? Welcome to the world of debt collection...

Re:Subsidized Devices

[tiberus]

And, you being the honest person that you are, would continue to pay that contract even though you no longer use the phone on the AT&T network.

You're a wonderful human being.

Keep in mind how far AT&T and other vendors are likely to go in order to enforce their contracts. Being three of more months in arrears is a very bad place to be, especially right now. Also, credit ratings are used to determine whether you can get an apartment, ...., and cell phone service on a monthly basis. As cell service is paid for in arrears (after service has been rendered), it is only provided to those who are credit worthy.

So great there is this nice new shiny, possibly free awesome cell phone, which is now a brick since no one will give you service.

Re:Subsidized Devices

[zeroshade]

And, you being the honest person that you are, would continue to pay that contract even though you no longer use the phone on the AT&T network.

Why would you no longer use the phone on the AT&T Network after you jailbreak it? The phone isn't very useful if you don't have service to it.

Me, being a far more evil person, would immediately stop paying my contract once I jail-broke my phone. What are they going to do? Slash my credit rating? Meanwhile, AT&T is still out the cost of my phone.

That's why they have ETFs. They would slash your credit rating and you'd owe them the ETF. Up to you....

Re:Subsidized Devices

[DavidTC]

Erm, people here appear to have confused jailbreaking with unlocking, which are two entirely separate things, although often unlocking requires jailbreaking.

No one's actually arguing they have the right to get out of any contact, or even to use their phone on another network.

Jailbreaking is just making it where you can run random software on the phone.

I have a jailbroken iPhone that is still locked to AT&T. (Although, technically, I'm out of my contact and I could unlock it, or, hell, demand AT&T unlock it.)

Consoles

[brit74]

I'm sure Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo will now be even determined to make sure your console only works with a network connection. At least they'll still be able to ban users from their network for jailbreaking consoles.

(I'm one of the few Slashdotters who's anti-piracy because I think stopping piracy increases the incentive for developers to invest time and money creating software for the platform. No wonder all the huge growth in game-sales over the past ten years has been in consoles, while PC sales have actually declined.)

Re:Consoles

[Darkinspiration]

Unfortunatly DRM is more about market control and medium control then preventing piracy. It was shown time and time again that all DRM is eventualy broken and will not stop the pirate. It will however stop the used seller, region lock the product and force antiquated distribution pratice. Currently piracy is the convinient excuse. I would think that if piracy would go away tomorrow our media would still contain DRM just in case...

Re:Consoles

[jedidiah]

The rise of consoles as a gaming platform has squat to do with DRM, or rather it does but not in the way you think it does. Nonsense DRM on PCs KILLS the usability of that platform for games. It makes a PC even more of a bother than it would be otherwise.

DRM breaks PC games.

DRM magnifies the usability gap between PCs and consoles.

People use consoles simply because they are less bother.

Re:Consoles

[Jibekn]

I disagree, I think PC sales have steadily risen, but this statement (and yours) cannot be proven due to lack of data. (Go ask Steam, Impulse, GOG and the rest to release their sales numbers)

SFLC have a good submission too

[ciaran_o_riordan]

SFLC's request would be a bigger win. Here's their submission:
https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2011/SFLC-proposed-DMCA-exemption.pdf

And their press release gives an introduction:
http://softwarefreedom.org/news/2011/dec/02/proposed-dmca-exemption/

Are there any geeks in Congress?

[sohmc]

This is a bit of a side question, but it begs to be asked: I've often wondered if there is a rep or senator that actually knows what the difference between "computer" and "CPU" without help from his staff.

I've actually considered running for office for these types of laws to be passed (REAL net-neutrality, get rid of software patents, etc). The more I get older, the more I'm convinced that most politicians are just mouthpieces of a PR firm that has voting privileges.

Re:Are there any geeks in Congress?

[pdxer]

This is a bit of a side question, but it begs to be asked: I've often wondered if there is a rep or senator that actually knows what the difference between "computer" and "CPU" without help from his staff.

No. In fact, there's no one who is even halfway bright.

I've actually considered running for office for these types of laws to be passed (REAL net-neutrality, get rid of software patents, etc).

Unless you can convince large corporate donors, trial lawyers, unions, etc. that this is in their best interest, you haven't a prayer of getting elected, much less enacting any legislation.

If you want to change the way things work, you need to become very rich first. After which, you'll have a vested interest in making sure things don't change. This is true in all democracies.

Re:Are there any geeks in Congress?

[grcumb]

This is a bit of a side question, but it begs to be asked: I've often wondered if there is a rep or senator that actually knows what the difference between "computer" and "CPU" without help from his staff.

Tragically, Herman Cain and Ross Perot are about as close as you're going to get. Apparently, something happens to geeks when they enter politics that reduces their cognitive functions to nil, resulting in their inability to do aught else besides sloganeering.

Re:Are there any geeks in Congress?

[Jagen]

I've actually considered running for office for these types of laws to be passed (REAL net-neutrality, get rid of software patents, etc).

Unless you can convince large corporate donors, trial lawyers, unions, etc. that this is in their best interest, you haven't a prayer of getting elected, much less enacting any legislation.

If you want to change the way things work, you need to become very rich first. After which, you'll have a vested interest in making sure things don't change. This is true in all democracies.

And even assuming you managed to raise enough funding you then need to convince enough people in a particular area that your one issue stance is so important that they should vote for you ahead of any more rounded candidates, good luck.

Jailbreaking consoles

[drb226]

I wonder what implications this has for XBox, Wii, PlayStation, etc.

Re:Jailbreaking consoles

[slinches]

It means nothing except that a company couldn't threaten to get you thrown in a real jail for jailbreaking your devices. They'll still be able to do whatever they want to the hardware and software to prevent you from doing it.

Re:Jailbreaking consoles

[Captain Spam]

Honestly, I can't imagine it'll be that huge an implication. Just because it'll be legal doesn't at all mean Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sony need to make it easy, nor does it stop them from ruining old jailbreak methods with new firmware, like what they do now, to whatever effectiveness it does.

It just means fewer people get arrested for it. And I don't think I've heard about many arrests in that area lately.

Re:Jailbreaking consoles

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what implications this has for XBox, Wii, PlayStation, etc.

I suspect if you "jailbreak" your console you'll suddenly find yourself unable to play games. They aren't under any obligation to update / support your machine's software / ability to play games if you mess with the software. At which point you have a new DVR...

Re:Jailbreaking consoles

[DeadboltX]

If it were legal then it would legitimize businesses that build themselves around provided help or tools for people to jailbreak their devices.

Think of it as if modding an Xbox was legal. There would be tons of companies providing quality mod chips and services with healthy competition instead of having to go to someones shady friend who bought a shady mod chip from a shady website from China.

Re:Jailbreaking consoles

[intx13]

Honestly, I can't imagine it'll be that huge an implication. Just because it'll be legal doesn't at all mean Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sony need to make it easy, nor does it stop them from ruining old jailbreak methods with new firmware, like what they do now, to whatever effectiveness it does.

If it's legal it can be widely advertised and freely undertaken. If jailbroken phones are desirable, their legality will create a market for jailbreakable phones and (with time) vendors will try to expand into that market.

Re:Jailbreaking consoles

[geminidomino]

It just means fewer people get arrested for it. And I don't think I've heard about many arrests in that area lately.

Wouldn't it also mean fewer people get sued under the DMCA for it? Like, say, Geohot?

Make their money back?

[AdamJS]

Horseshit. If someone quits paying for your services and they've jailbroken an associated product, then bill them for the device and add any subsidization costs onto the early termination fees.

Warranty

[Manos_Of_Fate]

I don't know how much difference the legality will make when jailbreaking will continue to void your warranty/ violate the ToS/EULA for whatever you're jailbreaking. I really doubt breaking the law is the reason most people don't mod their Xboxes, for example.

Re:Car Analogy

[Greystripe]

That's been done for years in order to fine tune a motor for increased hp/torque/fuel efficiency.

Summary of SFLC's submission

[ciaran_o_riordan]

They've asked for a DMCA exception for:

Computer programs that enable the installation and execution of lawfully obtained software on a personal computing device, where circumvention is performed by or at the request of the device's owner.

So, for any device you buy, you can install GNU/Linux, or Rockbox, or OpenWRT, or Sugar, OpenMoko, etc.

Their argument is based on recognising the value of the jailbreak-exemption which was granted in 2009, and saying that SFLC's suggested exemtion is what's needed in 2012 and beyond to achieve that same sort of goal.

There's no dense legalese in the document. It's a readable set of arguments with numbers and examples to back them up.

Recycling

[arthurpaliden]

If you cannot do what you like with you hardware then you obviously do not own it. If you do not own it you are not responsible for recycling it. Which means you just have to return all your old devices the store where you got them and it is there problem (cost) to recycle.

Re:Recycling

[intx13]

If you cannot do what you like with you hardware then you obviously do not own it.

You can't legally saw the barrel off your shotgun, remove the airbags from your car, or torture your dog. We give government the power to make laws abridging our use of our own possessions. I think modding should be legal, with exceptions as necessary (reselling a car without disclosing modded brake-control firmware, for example), but I don't think the definition of ownership is the right way to argue the point.

Re:Recycling

[jedidiah]

So the jailbreaking the DRM on a game console or phone is like a having a sawed off shotgun or torturing household pets.

Nice corner you've painted for yourself there.

Maybe you should get an "Edison Prize" or some such.

All I can say is

[Trigun]

good EFF'ing luck with that.

If you can't open it...

[k6mfw]

...you don't own it.

Re:If you can't open it...

[grahamsaa]

Exactly. Thing is, most people (particularly in the US) don't "own" their phones -- they get them at a subsidized price in exchange for a lengthy contract. If owning a device legally requires you to purchase a service, the device owns you.

Re:If you can't open it...

[forkfail]

You already don't own most of your Windows software.

Now they're moving towards the hardware.

See also Window Secure Boot, and the ramifications thereof...

Isn't there a complication for phones?

[perpenso]

Isn't there a complication for phones? Jailbreaking your PS3 is one thing but a phone device connects to the phone network and falls under FCC jurisdiction in the U.S. Is it possible that jailbreaking may void the FCC license that allows the device to connect to the phone network?

Re:Isn't there a complication for phones?

[betterunixthanunix]

Aside from power and frequency restrictions (which can be limited in hardware), how might you run afoul of FCC regulations?

Re:Isn't there a complication for phones?

[Beardo the Bearded]

Let me tell you a story about an FCC-approved transmitter. It ran on an open frequency at burst data, 12ms at 50mW. The harmonics and power were too high for the FCC. The FCC suggested that I put in a delay of 87ms then a 1ms burst. They would then average out the signal strength over 100ms and use the average power for the transmission for the tests.

I changed the code, it passed the tests, and microchip sends the chips pre-programmed by the reel.

So that's how software can change your FCC compliance.

Re:Isn't there a complication for phones?

[perpenso]

Aside from power and frequency restrictions (which can be limited in hardware), how might you run afoul of FCC regulations?

You might not be running a version, or a "minor" revision of a version, of the telephony software that was loaded on the device when it was tested. It may be more of a bureaucratic problem than a technical problem.

car analogy

[Joe_Dragon]

with say ford only said you can use BP gas or locked out jiffy lube and other non dealer service centers?

Cisco

[Iamthecheese]

will have a fucking heart attack and throw 200,000 into a lobbyist's bag. Crippleware is their bread and butter.

Re:You'll just lose access to online services

[LateArthurDent]

Manufacturers won't have to void warranties for jailbroken devices. They can just deny owners access to online services like Xbox LIVE and the App Store because security can't be guaranteed if modded devices are allowed into a walled garden.

I am 100% ok with that scenario. I don't think the EFF will manage to get that far, though.

What if windows locked you into IE and app store

[Joe_Dragon]

What if windows locked you into IE and windows app store only apps? So no open source apps, no steam games, no adult apps or games, no non MS office, no firefox, and so on.

Re:Car Analogy

[viperidaenz]

Yes. You can probably even tinker with your airbag ecu, the ABS one, the traction control one.... however you'd have to be a retard to mess with safety features with no way of testing (unless you buy 100 cars and crash test them...)

You might run in to issues if your car failed to pass emissions testing though

Just in time for Windows 8.

[forkfail]

Given the whole bios thing, we'll probably need to jailbreak our Dell machines soon enough...

what about putting in bigger HDD's / any SATA disk

[Joe_Dragon]

at least the ps3 took any laptop sata HDD.
But the xbox locked into high cost MS hdd's that can be hacked around but you get banned for hacking?

I have no problems with locked systems

[future assassin]

that the manufacturers right and its my right to not have to buy what is locked. I have a huge issue with being called a criminal, pirate, goat fucker or what ever for wanting to modify hardware to make it perform better or do something it wasn't intended to like say the bomb trigger to blow up the White House or Pentagon.

Re:What if windows locked you into IE and app stor

[VGPowerlord]

What if windows locked you into IE and windows app store only apps? So no open source apps, no steam games, no adult apps or games, no non MS office, no firefox, and so on.

I'd be more concerned over the Mac on this front.

Re:You'll just lose access to online services

[JustSomeProgrammer]

The problem with this is determining if the device is jailbroken or real. It is possible to jailbreak something and still emulate the original to the point that the system doesn't know it is jailbroken but allowing you to have custom access to the messages so you could you know have a script that automatically locks on anytime a head is within sniper range and automatically fire a shot.

Stop calling use users!

[KGBear]

In this instance, we are not simply "users." We are owners. We have purchased devices, we have payed for them with our money, either upfront or by signing up for a multi-year contract, after which time the device belongs to the buyer. We are owners, buyers, proprietors, NOT users. We may be users from the point of view of the software licenses that usually come attached to these types of devices, but we should be able to wipe that software and install whatever we please on the OUR devices...

lessee, perhaps?

[forkfail]

That's rather the whole goal, though, now isn't it... that you don't own your hardware, but lease all of it, with the root level control not in your own hands. It makes life much simpler (and thus profitable) for the producers of said hardware. It also ensures that they can grab whatever data they want, whenever they want, without any control over it by you, the lessee of said device.

Re:nice job slashdot editors

[shutdown -p now]

You come to Slashdot to read the articles?

You must be new here.

What about pirates?

[cheekyjohnson]

But... what if someone is able to pirate something!? The fact that some artist may or may not have lost potential profit will bring about the apocalypse!

Therefore, paying customers must suffer.

Good first step

[LoudMusic]

That's a good first step, but how about requiring manufacturers to provide all root/administrative access to the hardware they've purchased? It's my fucking gadget.

next salvo in this war is...

[Polo]

Bluray players/cellphones/etc will now be rented to you.

Only the owner should have root access

[jamshid]

If you don't have root access it's not really your machine. As computers get ever more personal, from desktop to mobile to (physically) embedded systems, it's critical that every user has the ability to keep their data safe from governments and corporations, crooks and perverts.

Linus, re: Kernel Bug: Please apply patch "GPLv3"

[VortexCortex]

This is why GPL3 is better than the GPL2. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just use the existing copyright law to enforce this instead of waiting for legislature to do so?

It's really too bad that Linus hates the GPL3. He sees it as preventing MFGs from doing things with their hardware -- This is wrong, they can do whatever they like, but they must give us the keys to do what we like too. (Just like GPL2 re: source code -- boot ROM encryption = part of the source, IMHO). The concept of the GPLv3 is really no different than GPLv2 -- Users Need Software Freedom.

Device MFGs & Carriers discovered an exploit in v2.0 series of GPL, and leveraged it.Instead of patching the bug in Linux, Linus ignores it and pretends that's what he meant to do... Like Peewee Herman: "I was sloppy with copyright assignments and now I can't upgrade to v3 even if I wanted too -- Not because I was young and naive and lacked foresight, but because: I meant to do that."

Well, it's Linus's code so he can do what he wants license wise -- Actually, it's minimally his, it's mostly every other contributor's code now, according to Copyright laws. He never required assignment, so no, he CAN'T do whatever he wants license wise. Some would say: "Well, he knew that when he started out." Seriously? No. Honestly? You expect me to believe that a SOFTWARE developer, agreed to have some aspect that could never be upgraded even if exploits were found? Is that what I'm supposed to believe? I'm going to have to call on Occam's Razor for this one. Either Linus was ignorantly foolishly, or willfully so.

That's why it was such a big deal that "at your option, any later version" got left out. I stopped contributing when this was brought to light after Linus stated is opinion on the trivialization issue. I seriously think he realized it couldn't be fixed easily, and instead of working to fix the issue he decided that it was right not to do so.

Now I work on and use the next best thing -- HURD. This kernel may go nowhere, in fact it has some deep flaws but so does Linux... Any progress is better than nothing. You don't want to use out-dated and bug-ridden code, why would you settle for out-dated and bug ridden licenses? I prefer to be able to patch both my software and licenses against exploits. I mean, just look at Apple & BSD. Do we want that for Linux? No? Well, too bad. Welcome to Android.

I've seen what path Linus has chosen, and I don't like it at all. IMHO, the kernel itself is not important, it just needs to marshal my applications (many of which run on BSD/OSX/Linux/HURD & Win -- I support user freedoms). What's important is whether my contributions will serve my interests in the future, or be used against me in an effort to limit my freedoms.

Re:Linus, re: Kernel Bug: Please apply patch "GPLv

[VortexCortex]

*his opinion on the tivoization issue
Heh, the word's not in the spellcheck dictionary? Hmm, bug-report #2...

Why else prohibit jailbreaking...

[Gbor]

other then to protect lucrative package deals and squeeze out every last drop of profit?

BSD?

[andersh]

What exactly do you mean by "look at Apple & BSD"?

Re:Car Analogy

[DavidTC]

What do you mean, 'allowed'? Manufacturers don't really sell anything to do it, but it's not 'locked' and people do indeed tweak the computer. Manufacturers do not in any way attempt to restrict reprogramming the computer, no.

Just like the manufacturers don't restrict you painting your windshield where you can't see out of it, or mounting pieces of rebar sticking ten feet out of the side of your car, or placing a giant spotlight on your hood to blind oncoming drivers.

However, there are usually specific laws about what sort of vehicle can be operated on the road, and those laws have nothing to with the manufacturers. (In fact, the manufacturers have to compile with those laws in order to sell the car.)

Some of the computer tweaking would violate the law, such as various emission rules, and the police could, in theory, have your car removed from the road because of that. (And some tweaking is just stupid. Do not under any circumstance tweak your cruise control. A broken cruise control is a good way to have your car randomly accelerate.)