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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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?"

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: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.

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/

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

[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?

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.

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: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.