Jailbreaking Could Soon Become Illegal Again

Diggester writes "Back in July 2010, the United States government approved a few exemptions in a federal law which made jailbreaking/rooting of electronic devices (iPhones and Android devices) legal. The court ruling stated that every three years, the exemptions have to be renewed considering they don't infringe any copyrighted material. The three-year period is due to expire and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is looking to get the exemptions renewed. In order to do so, they have filed a petition which aims at government to declare jailbreaking legal once again. In addition to that, EFF is also asking for a change in the original ruling to include tablet devices." Here's the EFF's own page on the issue.

Comments

Re:Very relevant XKCD

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's not.

Re:Very relevant XKCD

[Anonymous Coward]

not relevant at all.
Time to filter out the new bots that have been spamming ./ in the past while.

Who cares

[mvar]

Illegal or not i'll do whatever i want with my phone. I may as well take a hammer and test its screen, oh wait, is that illegal too? Patents, IP, copyright, SOPA, PIPA, lawsuits.. fuck them

Re:Who cares

[Microlith]

You should care. If you don't, you're just handing the reins over to someone who will fuck you over with force of law.

And if you don't care, you're half the problem.

Re:Who cares

[jamstar7]

Breaking your phone's screen is about the only thing that's legal. It forces you to buy another phone.

Re:Who cares

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You care. Because not only is it illegal for you to jailbreak, it is illegal for someone else to help you. As in to provide the tools to do the jailbreaking. So unless you are an uberhacker, you won't be doing much jailbreaking.

Re:Who cares

[Hentes]

Just because the laws are bad doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix them. You might think that it won't have any effect, just wait until people get convicted for posting jailbreaking methods or linking to those posts.

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

[i]Illegal or not i'll do whatever i want with my phone[/i]

YOU do something that no one will know about is not the problem.

The problem are the people who are creating the tools. If creation, or possession of the tools becomes illegal, or advocation and instruction on how to use them becomes illegal... then all those websites you can easily "google" today to learn how to do it will VANISH.

You're welcome to reinvent the wheel in your basement, but more than likely you'll simply saying "fuckit" and move on... which is exactly what the proponents of laws like this want.

Re:Who cares

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Inconveniently, you'll attempt to do what you want with your phone.

In the vast majority of cases, unless the owner of the device has considerable spare time and skills far outside the norm, their ability to do what they want with their device depends largely on the public availability of tools for doing so. Those tools are the ones that are most likely to get harder to find should their legal status shift(architecturally, prosecuting individuals who tamper with a GUID-bearing, cellular-modem-connected, user-account-data-correlated, device would actually be comparatively practical, make one mistake in your jailbreak, hit a tripwire or a tilt-bit somewhere, and run the risk that the hardware will phone home and report you; but unlikely to be a good PR move...)

Against a complex system, you are only as good as your tools, which becomes a much greater limitation if those become contraband.

Re:Who cares

[Microlith]

And you're under prior-restraint to keep silent about such methods!

Don't you love how the DMCA violates the First Amendment for the sake of corporate interests?

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

The crazier the intellectual property laws get the less respect people will have for intellectual property laws. I care quite a bit, but at this point it may be easier to just let "big content" hang themselves.

Re:Who cares

[theillien]

Somehow, I don't think illegality will stop people from creating the tools or finding ways to disseminate them. Call me crazy since we already know how locked down things are on the Internet and nothing illegal ever happens.

Re:Who cares

[Tr3vin]

I do care, but I speak with my money. I buy phones that the manufacturer allows me to hack / modify. 'fastboot oem unlock' is a glorious thing. I'd rather give money to a company that allows me to do what I want than fight the more controlling companies.

Re:Who cares

[PopeRatzo]

The crazier the intellectual property laws get the less respect people will have for intellectual property laws.

I'm not sure how much less respect people can have for "intellectual property laws".

Any possibility for respect was wasted when "95 years from publication or 120 years from creation whichever is shorter" became the length of a copyright. Or when advocates for "intellectual property" sought penalties in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading songs via bittorrent.

There just isn't a compelling reason why anyone should respect copyright laws. Especially considering how little of the financial benefit of those laws actually goes to the creator.

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Illegal or not i'll do whatever i want with my phone.

Like most nerds on Slashdot, you lack any feeling of control in your daily life, so you seek it in computers and smartphones. That's why you're so obsessed with "freedom."

Re:Who cares

[poetmatt]

They've just never had a chance to challenge the issue directly. The courts have sidestepped this as much as possible to narrowly rule on technicalities. The truth is, prior restraint isn't suddenly invalid as a defense because of the DMCA but courts are always very hesitant to fight against laws created by congress. Isn't it great? Even in the supreme court. This is how broken our system of branches of gov't is as it exists.

It becomes: Legislative branch -> judicial branch (Judicial rolls over 99% of the time)
Legislative branch = executive branch.

Nice balanced political system huh.

Re:Who cares

[tepples]

I'd rather give money to a company that allows me to do what I want than fight the more controlling companies.

So would I, but in some cases that I've seen, "the more controlling companies" control virtually all of a market.

Re:Who cares

[mvar]

Agreed. Although with "who cares" I meant that we just shouldn't obey all these irrational laws they vote since most of them are written to either fuck us (the people) or serve some specific financial lobby, or both.

Re:Who cares

[Dahamma]

Especially considering how little of the financial benefit of those laws actually goes to the creator.

The copyright length is definitely absurd (I'd argue in most cases 2-3 years would allow recovering the investment made into it and the majority of future profits), and removing casual copying of content probably would not result in much of an increase in sales, I agree. But it is still a huge benefit to content creators in one way - it keeps organized, commercial piracy (that is so common in Asian countries) to a minimum in many countries.

Imagine if there were *no* laws against copying someone else's work - say anyone could legally copy a studio's movie print and show it in their own theater, or copy DVDs, CDs, or books and sell them in a retail store along side the "official" copies, etc. Those copiers don't have to make back the time and money put into creating the work, only the trivial cost of duplicating it. I'd call preventing that a definite financial benefit to the creator...

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Jury Nullification, it's time to take those laws back from corruption.

Re:Who cares

[sourcerror]

If I buy a carrier independent Android compatible phone then I don't have to jailbreak it.

Re:Who cares

[Microlith]

So do I, which is why I still use my N900.

I'd rather give money to a company that allows me to do what I want than fight the more controlling companies.

You have no choice. Look at the primary opponent of this: Apple. Look at their results. You cannot simply avoid them, their influence on the market is so stupidly huge that even if you don't buy their product, they can still directly impact your ability to choose other options in the future.

Re:Who cares

[tepples]

If I buy a carrier independent Android compatible phone

With the mess of protocols (CDMA2000 vs. GSM/UMTS), bands (AWS vs. standard), and plans (no discount for not taking a subsidized phone) that is the U.S. cell phone market, do you have a plan for making this practical in the United States?

Re:Who cares

[fish_in_the_c]

Are they immoral? If so disobey them.. if not obey them and work to change them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

The question is are your action out of Love or Selfishness.
Out of concern for the common good , or just being a tool.

If you are actually looking to create a better world around you people will have more respect for your position ,even if they don't agree with it, they are still likely to jail, crucify or otherwise attack you, but your actions will have slow effect towards justice and you might have a chance at changing things because, often times people know when they are wrong even if they don't admit it.

If your motivations are selfish than it will show too and no-body will listen to you because you aren't just being a cry baby when you put in jail for doing what you knew was illegal.

That's the real problem with the occupy movement, they don't offer solutions , only complaints, they aren't making any useful demands on what would actually make things better, based on concern for the public good, they are simply saying they don't like the way things are.

News flash, nobody likes the way things are, the world will never be perfect this side of the grave.

The only question is , what are you going to do about it!

Re:Who cares

[whoever57]

I do care, but I speak with my money. I buy phones that the manufacturer allows me to hack / modify.

And when no manufacturer sells such a phone/tablet/whatever? What will you do then?

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

There just isn't a compelling reason why anyone should respect copyright laws

How about a large group of guys with guns and the ability to control your bank account and freedom?

Re:Who cares

[whoever57]

If I buy a carrier independent Android compatible phone then I don't have to jailbreak it.

You are confused between sim-unlocking (allws the phone to be used with different carriers) and jailbreaking (allows different firmware to be loaded or features enabled).

Re:Who cares

[nurb432]

You will care when you cant access any tools to do it if they are all blocked, and perhaps even be logged that you tried to access the tools, or if you get them and succeed in jail breaking your service goes dark and a warrant is automatically issued .( it can be detected by the carriers if its a cell phone ya know.. )

Re:Who cares

[whoever57]

Agreed. Although with "who cares" I meant that we just shouldn't obey all these irrational laws they vote since most of them are written to either fuck us (the people) or serve some specific financial lobby, or both.

The copyright lobby has not dropped SOPA/PIPA. Even a watered-down version of these could make it very difficult for communities to develop around rooting/jailbreaking phones so that, unless you can figure out your own jailbreak, you may not be able to download the information and binaries required to jailbreak.

Re:Who cares

[betterunixthanunix]

Illegal or not i'll do whatever i want with my phone

So, where do I get all the tools that geohot wrote, so that I can jailbreak my PS3?

The problem with software being illegal is that it makes it harder to get that software, which discourages people who might have done so otherwise. I have no problem finding the PS3 jailbreaking tools, but a lot of other people would. Further, do you really want hackers to be arrested, deported, and so forth just for writing or distributing such tools? Do you really want to have to go on Tor or Freenet to find them?

Re:Who cares

[houghi]

The reason is control. As everybody now is a criminal, they can use it as leverage to let you do stuff you normally never would do.

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

..., only the trivial cost of duplicating it.

I always imagine an author who received a $20,000 advance payment for a book compared to the cost of creating 100,000 or more copies of the book. Does duplication of printed material really cost that little?

Re:Who cares

[idontgno]

Interesting. The iPhone Reality Distortion Field is, in fact, the tidal gravitation zone of their humongous black hole's event horizon. The entire smartphone industry is stuck in the iPhone accretion disk, and there's almost no escape.

Well, I'll still keep jailbraking, and they won't catch me.

Re:Who cares

[PRMan]

He said respect, not fear. There's a difference.

Re:Who cares

[Fjandr]

Yes, the major expense involved is the initial setup of a print run. After that, the cost per volume is trivial.

Re:Who cares

[PopeRatzo]

Imagine if there were *no* laws against copying someone else's work - say anyone could legally copy a studio's movie print and show it in their own theater, or copy DVDs, CDs, or books and sell them in a retail store along side the "official" copies, etc.

Is that what's happening? Do you see pirated DVDs and CDs on the shelves at Best Buy? Can you tell me which theaters are showing pirated films?

Why do the apologists for the ridiculous "intellectual property" laws always have to go to imaginary scenarios to try to make their case?

In the real world, can you provide proof that artists are making less money because of illegal copies than they would have if there had been no illegal copies? Because I can show you the opposite. Yes, I can show you instances of artists who would have made much less money if their work had not been passed around on torrent sites.

Hell, there are artists who got their start by distributing their work on bittorrent sites. Without that "illegal copying" those artists would never have gotten a record contract.

So, if you can lay out some evidence that the violation of copyright is actually lessening artists' incomes, then we can talk. Until then, I maintain that the current "intellectual property" laws do more harm than good - for customers and artists alike.

Re:Who cares

[Microlith]

Well, I'll still keep jailbraking, and they won't catch me.

Yeah, just stick your head in the sand.

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

And you take a sense of security from knowing that if you listen to what everyone else around you tells you, it will all be fine and your masters won't be angry with you.

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

The Galaxy Nexus is pentaband, supporting AWS and "standard" GSM. That just misses wimax and CDMA.

The Galaxy Nexus doesn't need SIM unlocking.

The Galaxy Nexus can be "jailbroken" simply by running fastboot oem unlock. No hacks needed, fastboot is a tool provided by Google.

Re:Who cares

[kelemvor4]

Imagine if there were *no* laws against copying someone else's work - say anyone could legally copy a studio's movie print and show it in their own theater, or copy DVDs, CDs, or books and sell them in a retail store along side the "official" copies, etc.

Is that what's happening? Do you see pirated DVDs and CDs on the shelves at Best Buy? Can you tell me which theaters are showing pirated films?

Why do the apologists for the ridiculous "intellectual property" laws always have to go to imaginary scenarios to try to make their case?

In the real world, can you provide proof that artists are making less money because of illegal copies than they would have if there had been no illegal copies? Because I can show you the opposite. Yes, I can show you instances of artists who would have made much less money if their work had not been passed around on torrent sites.

Hell, there are artists who got their start by distributing their work on bittorrent sites. Without that "illegal copying" those artists would never have gotten a record contract.

So, if you can lay out some evidence that the violation of copyright is actually lessening artists' incomes, then we can talk. Until then, I maintain that the current "intellectual property" laws do more harm than good - for customers and artists alike.

Talk about "whoosh". GP said that this is what would happen if there were no IP laws, not that it is what is happening today.

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that what's happening? Do you see pirated DVDs and CDs on the shelves at Best Buy? Can you tell me which theaters are showing pirated films?

No, but that's explicitly BECAUSE there are laws against it. Do you really think they wouldn't do this if they could? Why the hell not?

You're being incredibly disingenuous here. The GP suggested a likely consequence of removing IP laws, and here you are claiming that the fact that it isn't happening now is somehow evidence that it wouldn't happen if it were legal.

Hell, there are artists who got their start by distributing their work on bittorrent sites. Without that "illegal copying" those artists would never have gotten a record contract.

Uh, if the artists were distributing their work themselves then it's not "illegal copying" at all. You're actually making an argument that takes the same hardline premise as the *AA's - that P2P distribution is inherently illegal.

Re:Who cares

[Digital Vomit]

Imagine if there were *no* laws against copying someone else's work - say anyone could legally copy a studio's movie print and show it in their own theater, or copy DVDs, CDs, or books and sell them in a retail store along side the "official" copies, etc.

That would be absolutely wonderful!

Re:Who cares

[PopeRatzo]

Talk about "whoosh". GP said that this is what would happen if there were no IP laws, not that it is what is happening today.

And as I said, so little of the money involved actually goes to the artists that even if those pirated CDs were sold at Best Buy, they probably wouldn't cut into their incomes.

Let's just not pretend that the intellectual property laws are working to protect the incomes of creators, OK?

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

yup. my phone. I paid for it, and if I want to add functionality that I can't get normally then I'll do it via other means. :)

Re:Who cares

[CRC'99]

As someone who recently jailbroke his iPad2, its one of the best things to ever happen to my iPad!

I bought a WiFi only model - as for my purposes, the onboard GPS is *very* substandard. When then trying to use a normal bluetooth GPS, I find out that you need a GPS that speaks "Apple" at $99USD + shipping to your country. After the jailbreak, a $5 donation to the guy who wrote a part of a bluetooth driver and bingo, now it works with ANY bluetooth GPS.

Theres also this awesome extension called "Mail Extender" that adds all the features that mail clients have developed over the last 10 years when Apple decided that you shall not send anything but plain text emails.

Thankfully, I live in a country where console modchips and other methods for device compatibility are 100% legal - and tested in court.

Re:Who cares

[IceNinjaNine]

The reason is control. As everybody now is a criminal, they can use it as leverage to let you do stuff you normally never would do.

We have a winner!

I do NOT want to hear any whining from you complacent motherfuckers when this comes home to roost. Seriously...
... and I just also say that both parties (I'm a USian) are complicit.

Re:Who cares

[IceNinjaNine]

As someone who recently jailbroke his iPad2, its one of the best things to ever happen to my iPad!

Your Friday nights must be incredible... ;)

Re:Who cares

[jasomill]

With the mess of protocols (CDMA2000 vs. GSM/UMTS), bands (AWS vs. standard), and plans (no discount for not taking a subsidized phone) that is the U.S. cell phone market, do you have a plan for making this practical in the United States?

T-Mobile (prepaid and contract) allows arbitrary GSM phones on their network, and T-Mobile also offers discounted "no-phone" contract plans. While this certainly doesn't solve the problem of "carrier independence," it does, assuming you can get decent T-Mobile coverage, allow you to "vote with your wallet."

This is orthogonal to the jailbreaking issue, by the way: the "jailbreaking exemption" covers installing software, and the "unlocking exemption" covers only

Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.

So it doesn't stop carriers (e.g., Verizon, Sprint) from disallowing unlocked third-party devices. As for AWS, it's a separate regulated frequency band, so even if you could modify a non-AWS device to support it, you'd still need to get the FCC to certify your modified phone — good luck with that.

A broader DMCA exemption wouldn't really help here, as the Librarian of Congress has no power to create exemptions to either carrier contracts or FCC regulations (obviously).

It'd never happen, but I'd personally like to see a "meta-exemption" that exempts "computer programs, when used solely for otherwise legal purposes, including the development and distribution of such programs that have substantial non-infringing uses." In other words, leave the anti-circumvention provisions on the books, but neuter them so they only apply to, well, actual cases of copyright infringement.

Re:Who cares

[Dahamma]

Until it destroyed the entire entertainment industry because no one could afford to produce any content.

And PLEASE don't tell me about another starving musician who got their start on bittorrent. I guarantee you that would be the end of the movie industry as we know it, as there would be no reason for a company to invest $100M+ into a major production if no one had to pay to see it.

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Until it destroyed the entire entertainment industry because no one could afford to produce any content.

you act like that would be a bad thing..

it'd certainly weed out the people doing it only for money and leave the people doing it because it's what they love.

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't care you don't recognize their law. I never partnered with any country or "gang" of people. I never agreed to abide by their laws.

I do what I want. Fuck them.

Re:Who cares

[Dahamma]

I was waiting for that idiotic, if obvious, reply...

If destroying the entertainment industry is not a bad thing to you, then you have no interest in the content anyway, so why the hell would you care what other people do? Jealousy? Spite?

There is nothing wrong with doing a job for the money. That's why the vast majority of people work. At the same time, loving what you do and making a living are not mutually exclusive. There are actually some very good *movies* and video games that cost over $100M and years of effort by hundreds of people to make, and a lot of love was put into them.

I'd like to think they would make all of that back plus a bit of profit based purely on consumer generosity, but the fact is, if people had the choice between paying $50 for a game or $1, the majority will pay $1. And if they had a choice between a $10 movie ticket or a $1 movie ticket, they will buy the $1 movie ticket. Those companies would quickly go out of business, and all of those consumers will now get to entertain themselves watching PBS and playing solitaire.

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought an N9 this week, because it might be the last of its kind.

Maybe Samsung and Intel will make a Tizen phone some day.

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

I always imagine an author who received a $20,000 advance payment for a book compared to the cost of creating 100,000 or more copies of the book. Does duplication of printed material really cost that little?

Say what? Try $5,000. If you're lucky.

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

The effect of stopping organized commercial piracy does seem to be positive. The problem is when those laws are applied to non-profit individuals rather than sleezy corporations (e.g. zynga).

Unrelatedly, passing laws against jailbreaking is a silly law because, among other reasons, it is completely unenforceable. When jailbreaking an iphone has no effect on other people and is undetectable in the world, how could anyone ever be brought to task for it? Moreover, how does it cause a societal problem of such severity that the US government can't have its citizens doing such a *gasp* destructive thing?
If this law were limited just to corporations, that would be different.

To paraphrase Cpt. Jack Sparrow, they're really more like guidelines.

Re:Who cares

[dbIII]

I agree, that was a major consideration when I got my Nokia N900. Letting everybody have root on that device and even boot off other media if they want didn't hurt Nokia at all.
The control is pointless unless insisted on by telephone companies that are becoming less relevant to the situation. The model of phone available (eg. iPhone) is considered as being more important than the carrier now.

Re:Who cares

[edb]

There's a pie-chart meme several years old:
http://artandavarice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/record-company.gif

That graphic might be derived from information in this article from the 1990s:
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

I've not been able to find a direct source for that famous pie chart, let alone the original data source. But in my experience as a musician and publisher, it's plausible.

[heed the signature]

Re:Who cares

[Athator]

That's the real problem with the occupy movement, they don't offer solutions , only complaints, they aren't making any useful demands on what would actually make things better, based on concern for the public good, they are simply saying they don't like the way things are.

Actually the Occupy movement have been making extremely sensible demands, mainly focusing on getting corporate money out of politics. These items taken from the Guardian article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy

  The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process. No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act â" the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create fake derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.

No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.

Re:Who cares

[phantomfive]

Is that what's happening? Do you see pirated DVDs and CDs on the shelves at Best Buy? Can you tell me which theaters are showing pirated films?

Uh, yes it is. In countries that don't respect copyright, those things happen. Have you never been out of the US?

Re:Who cares

[hairyfeet]

The part that geeks never seem to grasp is that by and large the public really doesn't give a shit about this because....its a phone that does Google and plays Angry birds, that's all. you see to a GEEK its a portable computing device, with an OS and hardware that has X capabilities, but to the consumer its a screen with buttons that does Google and Angry Birds and they'll just chunk it in a drawer and get another one when their contract is up. I actually had someone on here last time jailbreaking come up say "They'll care when they see the POWER of a jailbroken device!" like 1.-There are geeks sitting on a corner going "Behold the power of the jailbreak!" with people standing around like he discovered fire, and 2.-Anybody would know WTF they were looking at or 3.- they would give a fuck.

This is also, just FYI, why ARM netbooks have zero chance whereas tablets have no problem, because likewise a tablet isn't a general computing device, its a "screen you poke that has icons and plays games" while a netbook is a "cute baby laptop' and baby laptops should do everything a big laptop does only slower, because they are babies and babies aren't as strong as big people, get it?

So if you want to sell this to the public and get the masses behind this you need to quit the "Behold the power of the jailbreak! watch and be amazed as I SSH on my cellular phone!" bullshit and start thinking like a consumer and sell it to them in ways they can understand like "With this you can download tons of stuff for free that isn't in the app store!" because folks like free stuff and can understand why getting free stuff would be good. While I agree that having this ability is good you just really need to work on your presentation more guys, maybe go by your local mom & pop PC shop and try to sell the idea to the average folks that come in there, or maybe the people that you find in your local grocery store, you know, normal folks. because so far all the arguments i've seen for jailbreaking boil down to "Frreeeedom!" or listing off some feature 99.995% of the planet has no damned clue what it even is. not the right way to go if you want the masses writing and urging lawmakers to cut that shit out. look at SOPA/PIPA which boiled down to "They'll take your YouTube and Internet radio stations!" and even grandma understood THAT was bad.

Re:Who cares

[phantomfive]

If your motivations are selfish than it will show too and no-body will listen to you

Then how do you explain the Newt?

Re:Who cares

[bronney]

Those companies would quickly go out of business, and all of those consumers will now get to entertain themselves watching PBS and playing solitaire.

But slowly, after 10,000 rounds of solitaire, some will start paying $2 for that movie. Perhaps a whole new way of publishing and distributing will emerge that prevents copying for free (Steam, Eve Online [technically you can play for free], Origin, etc). After 20 more crappy movies, some more will want to pay $4 to see a better movie. We're not zombies.

The iPhone is scarce when launch, not because it got pirated out of existence, but because of people willing to pay $1000 for one here.

Re:Who cares

[Splab]

Same here, I personally think it's a shame that PIPA, SOPA and CIPA didn't get approved at full force. I seriously doubt people will wake up until the feel the full horror of the decisions of the powers that be, then we might start working on a saner world.

Re:Who cares

[RanceJustice]

Comments like this are damaging to the very ability to do as you say. You start off with a general statement that is thoughtful and on the surface, seems to be correct, but go on to repeat an oft-cited untruth which, now with the audience at a state of agreement, skews their view just enough to disparage the very people actually acting in the manner you suggest. The most intellectual of information control campaigns work just this way.

I don't know where people are getting the idea that the Occupy movements have no solutions for the problems they protest against. From the very start, alternate plans have been posed to alter the course of the ship of State away from such dangerous waters. I cannot speak for every encampment of the movement, but in Washington DC at Freedom Plaza I've personally witnessed daily workshops, operating in the truest form of democracy, giving everyone a chance to speak and add their two cents to exactly how to solve the issues at hand and most important combat the disinformation that the other side spreads like wildfire. I've seen third-generation farmers and scientists who worked for the USDA at one time stand together, explaining the damage of corporate agriculture and Monsanto-controlled misinformation that has blighted the land and how simple changes to organic farming standards would impact everything from the dangerous level of pharmaceutical runoff and nitrates in the water supply, to the obesity epidemic. I've seen the rarest of breeds, ethical investment bankers explaining the problems with the system and citing the regulations needed to even begin to fix it, as well as combating the idea that we need to be umbilically tethered to finance as it stands to enjoy modern economics. I've seen regular people speaking about what they know, offering many solutions up for discussion and improvement, for the greater good. These ideas manifest into actions; phone banks that jammed the Capital switchboard, marches to bring the solutions right to those who can, in our current system make changes, and much more. Of course, all of which have been played down in the media and actively in some cases obstructed (pepper spraying 80 year old women really make the point), from their action, yet those involved do not falter. Go to something like October2011.org and read about what is being done, every day.

It is purely by corporate media manipulation and shills bought by the money from their ill-gotten gains that even suggest these people offer only objection with no realistic solutions. The very idea illustrates the degree of control those in power have a the moment and the extent of the issues we face. They don't want the average American to get off his ass, wake up, and start listening. They don't want him walking down to his local movement and getting involved. They don't just want him eating his processed gunk, exhausted from his increasingly low-paying jobs with longer hours, accessing the passive entertainment they provide, too tired to do anything else, they want him to love them and thank them for the privilege, defending his own subjugation at any cost. Long ago a handful of of the smartest and most unethical figured out that they didn't have to hide or curtail their dealings, if they could only control perception significant to ensure that the majority would be too apathetic, cynical, and empty-headed from suckling at the poison teat of their particular form of capitalism, to want to do anything of the issues right in front of their face.

The Occupy movement represents the antithesis of this corporate and finance-controlled state and thus, they work harder than ever to spread misinformation so that people will actively hate, or at least discourage, those who stand the best chance of liberating them. One day every reader here may find himself forced to choose between supporting his liberation or his enslavement; look to the Arab world over the past year and think that it may not be unrealistic to find that if those pressing for their freedom and a

Re:Who cares

[RCL]

Ten years ago in Russia you'd have hard time finding a legal CD being sold. BUT - it wasn't matter of mindset, but of price. I.e. people still preferred to buy stuff (even if pirated), not copy it between themselves, because it was easy and affordable to go buy a $1-$3 pirated CD instead of bringing your HDD to a friend (broadband internet wasn't available back then). So I'd argue that if legal software were in the same price range in Russia, it would have been more popular than pirated copies.

Re:Who cares

[tepples]

Thankfully, I live in a country where console modchips and other methods for device compatibility are 100% legal

Is your country taking immigrants?

Re:Who cares

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

You vastly overestimate the number of people who have anything but the foggiest idea of what copyright is about, never mind things like how long a copyright is good for. What little they know is provided in school education (where it's just presented as fact: copyright is here, this is what it does), and via the very limited 11 o'clock nightly news coverage which heavily favors the existing laws.

And what's better is that even if you explained it in a way that reached most people - they *still* wouldn't care. It's kind of like running Windows on your computer - it's there, it's part of the background, and most folks have no reason to even think about it very much.

Re:Who cares

[Yvanhoe]

I wish I had never had to cancel a project because of these laws. I wish I could just ignore them. I can't. I don't want to look into this insanity but it interferes on my job.

Re:Who cares

[fish_in_the_c]

are you talking about occupy UK? I'm talking about occupy wall street , a group that explicited decided not to make demands because they couldn't agree an what they should be and what they would do if anyone met them. I haven't followed 'occupy' in any other country as that is unlikely to affect the politics of my own, unless the group here adopts similar tactics. I'm all for getting corporate money out of politics.

Re:Who cares

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Same here, I personally think it's a shame that PIPA, SOPA and CIPA didn't get approved at full force. I seriously doubt people will wake up until the feel the full horror of the decisions of the powers that be, then we might start working on a saner world.

Here's a wake up call - most people would never see the difference if those went into effect. Sure some web sites would disappear - and they'd be upset momentarily but then they'd move on to different web sites. Most folks still have an implicit trust of the governmetn - so if a web site redirects to some anti-piracy page, they're generally going to accept that at face value. (This is for the relatively small subset of people who even use the Internet extensively every day.) Some search results would go away - but they'd never be aware of it to begin with.

If you want people to care, you need to give them a personal reason to care. These laws, if passed, are insidious because they work in a way that keeps people unaware that they're even in effect.

[And no, these laws would not put Google, Youtube, etc out of business or take them offline -- these are huge businesses with a lot of money at stake; they'd find a way to comply without shutting down.]

TL;DR - remember that the people posting here, on blogs, etc are NOT the majority of people in this country. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that because an issue is big to you, it must be big to everyone -- look at it from an 'outside' perspective and it's easy to see just how little *visible* effect this would have.

Re:Who cares

[fish_in_the_c]

If what you are saying is true , then occupy needs to do a much better job of actually publicizing and promoting solutions. It is one thing to have a 'discussion' it is entirely another thing to get people to all agree on a solution and then present it publicly.

Let me put it this way, because maybe I am simply ill informed, it happens from time to time, and if I am I apologize ahead of time for talking out my naval.

Can you provide me a link, that contains the demands or solutions that are officially supported by the occupy movement Nationally? If not how about for your group ? I want something that is official though, something that if I went and found the group leaders they would recognize and say. Yes we signed and support that , this represents the goals of our movement.

So far all I've seen is unofficial post of different kinds, but nothing a newspaper could publish as the 'official' occupy position.

Of the things I've seen some were good and even practical , some simply not well thought out.
For instance I support congressional term limits, I limit of 1 term. I'd have to investigate it a bit further ,but to me it seems like there should be no such thing as a professional politician, only people looking to help out the country.

I've also seen suggestions like 'eliminate personal property rights'
or forgive all debts owned by everyone in the country.

some of which might seem 'nice' or 'idyllic' but i think are along the same idea as the child who wishes 'it would never rain again' so she/he can play all outside all the time. Bad ideas because of untended consequences.

In short my web search turn up various , demands , but nothing that seems to be official on a large enough level to expect national laws to be passed to support it. The demands are contradictory some reasonable, some senseless.

So which ones are 'offical' and that was my point.

Re:Who cares

[alexo]

If destroying the entertainment industry is not a bad thing to you, then you have no interest in the content anyway, so why the hell would you care what other people do? Jealousy? Spite?

Because they are co-opting his culture and locking him out of it. Imagine living in a world where it is illegal to sing "Happy birthday to you" when you celebrate your child's birthday in a restaurant or any public place.

Re:Who cares

[phantomfive]

So I'd argue that if legal software were in the same price range in Russia, it would have been more popular than pirated copies.

That isn't likely to happen, because pirates only need to cover the cost of reproduction, whereas content creators need to cover the cost of actually making the thing, in addition to the cost of reproduction.

Re:Who cares

[Synerg1y]

People tend to do a lot better at action when their back's up against the wall, until then...

Re:Who cares

[Synerg1y]

That's an Apple philosophy in general: Apple products only work with Apple accessories, that's why there's so little 3rd party stuff available for Apple compared to say everybody else. And they make bank on accessories to (a long long time ago in a retail store long dead managers got hard over accessory % sales) so don't expect them to be gentle...

Re:Who cares

[spamking]

You honestly think Best Buy would sell pirated content in they could get away with it?

Re:Who cares

[Dahamma]

But slowly, after 10,000 rounds of solitaire, some will start paying $2 for that movie. Perhaps a whole new way of publishing and distributing will emerge that prevents copying for free (Steam, Eve Online [technically you can play for free], Origin, etc)

Great, so instead of copyright law that at least gives people a choice to decide if their copying is legal (fair use, etc) we let the content publishers DRM everyone to death. I think I prefer to be given the option to act like a responsible adult than a child (or "zombie").

Besides, $2 or $4 is not going to cover the cost of a decent Pixar or Dreamworks 3D movie, let alone something like Avatar, Hugo, Harry Potter, etc (which were very well received by consumers). When you spend $200-300M on a movie or two and don't get anything in return, that's pretty much it for the company who produced it, you don't get 20 tries.

The iPhone is scarce when launch, not because it got pirated out of existence, but because of people willing to pay $1000 for one here.

And the iPhone is a *horrible* example - the resale value due to shortage of iPhones is very opposite example of supply and demand from an example that would bring a movie cost down to $1 with unlimited supply. Duplicating it accurately at a cost less than the original was impossible (a little more doable now that capacitive touch screens and small size LCDs, etc are more common, but due to the inherent hardware costs involved there is a minimum BOM, and few are going to beat Apple on the BOM cost). And further, the same trademark, copyright, and patent laws that prevent duplication of movies PREVENTED duplication of the iPhone, which is another argument *for it* from the manufacturer's viewpoint!

Re:Who cares

[Dahamma]

It's more like saying "Happy Birthday is a stupid song, I hate it, and I will NEVER sing it". And then complaining and wishing the author dead when someone says "that's good, because you can't sing it anyway." Besides, precedent has already been set allowing your example, which shows - once in a while - that common sense in these situations can win out...

Re:Who cares

[toriver]

No, content would be produced by people wanting to. Remember 90% of the world's music players do not make a living from it.

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think they wouldn't? What would stop them?

Re:Who cares

[RCL]

It theory you are correct, but practice was different. I actually worked in gamedev industry in Russia ten years ago, and our publisher sold our game (first one that was released in Russia in 2001, in the west in 2003) for 60 roubles ($2), the same price pirated Western games were sold at. Note that we weren't aware of pirated copies of our game on sale, but I don't know whether this needs to be attributed to anti-piracy policy of our publisher (not strictly legal) + software protection measures (Starforce) or affordable price, or both.

Anyway, my point is that there was a "flat rate" of 60 roubles/2 USD for game CDs back then set by pirates - they didn't go lower despite they probably could. Our publisher sold games it had rights to at the same price and didn't have much problems with piracy. It wasn't particularly profitable (like, our first game sold 300 000 copies in Russia for 2 USD each), but the budget for it was even smaller (I estimate it well below 100k USD judging by our salaries during making it - well, we were students anyway and were happy to see any money from making games, for most of us that was the first money we earned).

Re:Who cares

[RanceJustice]

I think it is important to remember not to hold Occupy and other protest movements to differing standards in this regard, than other more conventional political action groups. The vast majority of them, especially on the national level, do not have a unified agreement on the "issue" itself, much less a singular entity calling for singular action for a singular change.

Take something as acute as those who are anti-abortion - one may think, especially from the "outside" pro-choice perspective that they have a unified front of people who just assert to "make abortion illegal", but that is incorrect. There are a variety of anti-abortion groups who have varying belief systems (most religiously focused, but some are not and see it as a secular issue of humanity), views on the issue (some believe only late-term abortions should be outright banned, others believe that all abortions should be banned save for when it would threaten the mother's life and/or resulted from rape or incest, still others find it acceptable only if the fetus was afflicted with birth defects that would leave it a short life of pain outside the womb if any, and finally there are those that oppose it entirely), and finally methods of bringing about change (Some call of legislative bans at various levels of government, others wish to overturn Roe v Wade through a series of Supreme Court decisions, others wish to sway the American Medical Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to expel abortion performing physicians , while still others want to petition hospitals to refuse the use of their facilities for abortions and deny privileges to physicians who perform etc....).

Be wary; those who call for or oppose a strong united front are practicing a very sly form of propaganda because of its effectiveness at staying under the radar. When Fox News and AM radio personalities state that "Godless communist liberals want to make it illegal for your children to believe in god and turn your children into flaming homosexuals", they're trying to create fear by suggesting there's a nearly unassailable wall of empowered, collective "evil" out to get their target market. This entirely fake supposed assemblage of gay men in red chaps and Karl Marx jock straps who meet every week to drink cosmopolitans and congratulate each other on how many good, Christian boys they've turned into cock-loving slaves of Lenin can only be opposed by all "Real Americans" working together to oppose them with their own "united front" - thus, we see the rise of the Tea Party - where subscribing to the CORRECT singular, ultra-extreme ideology is seen as a strength; in truth, the only strength possible to stop the faux, constructed ideology "at any cost". Its horrible how well this technique works on certain demographics.

That said, the Occupy movements do have a variety of actionable plans for change and attainable goals in mind. This is not a movement that just generically wants "things to get better", but can identify many of the broken pieces of the current machine and plan to fix them. Take October2011.org, which is one of the pages that was started in conjunction with a "push" of the movement into Washington DC. If you head to the "Issues" page, a single click away from the homepage, you'll see the following, which easily proves all the "This movement has no message and doesn't know what they want" crap that corporate media blathered on about during their "fair and balanced" news coverage,...

"
1. Corporatism– firmly establish that money is not speech, corporations are not people, only people have Constitutional rights, end corporate influence over the political process, protect people and the environment from damage by corporations.

2. Wars and Militarism – end wars and occupations, end private for-profit military contractors, reduce the national security state and end the weapons export industry. War crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace must be addressed and those responsible

Re:Who cares

[exomondo]

Well he's talking about if it were legal, in that case I don't see why not.

Re:Who cares

[exomondo]

Remember 90% of the world's music players do not make a living from it.

What do you mean by 'music players'?

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, just stick your head in the sand.

better than living under a tin-foil hat.

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a movement that just generically wants "things to get better", but can identify many of the broken pieces of the current machine and plan to fix them.

Ok then, well i saw your list of things they have 'identified' as things that need to be fixed, still a big fail on exactly how they get fixed though.

1. Corporatism– firmly establish that money is not speech, corporations are not people, only people have Constitutional rights, end corporate influence over the political process, protect people and the environment from damage by corporations.

Corporate (and religious) influence in politics should be abolished, i agree there.

2. Wars and Militarism – end wars and occupations, end private for-profit military contractors, reduce the national security state and end the weapons export industry. War crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace must be addressed and those responsible held accountable under international law.

Yeah, can't we all just get along? When you work out how to solve all differences you let us know.

3. Human Rights – end exploitation of people in the US and abroad, end discrimination in all forms, equal civil rights and due process for all people.

So who's going to enforce this? There are already human rights laws so do you want to change them (if so how?) or just enforce them? And who should enforce them?

4. Worker Rights and jobs – all working-age people have the right to safe, just, non-discriminatory and dignified working conditions, a sustainable living wage, paid leave and economic protection.

Economic protection paid for by who? And how are you going to implement all of this? Unions and laws certainly don't seem to work so what's your alternative?

5. Government – all processes of the three branches of government should be accountable to international law, transparent and follow the rule of law, people have the right to participate in decisions which affect them.

And they will be accountable to whom?

6. Elections – all citizens 18 and older have the right to vote without barriers, all candidates have the right to be heard and to run and all votes should be counted.

No real issue with that, still need a central authority though.

7. Criminal justice and prisons –end private for-profit prisons, adopt evidence-based drug policy, prisoners have the right to humane and just conditions with a focus on rehabilitation and reintegration into society, abolish the death penalty.

Less of an issue implementing this.

8. Healthcare – create a national, universal and publicly financed comprehensive health system.

How are you going to achieve that?

9. Education – all people have the right to a high quality, publicly-funded and broad education from pre-school through vocational training or university.

How are you going to achieve that?

10. Housing – all people have the right to affordable and safe housing.

How?

11. Environment – adopt policies which effectively create a carbon-free and radio-active free energy economy and that respects the rights of nature.

How are you going to do that?

12. Finance and the economy – end policies which foster a wealth divide and move to a localized and democratic financial system, reform taxes so that they are progressive and provide goods, monetary gain and services for the people.

In what way?

13. Media – airwaves and the internet are public goods, require that media be honest, accurate and accountable to the people.

And who

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's step one then? It's all well and good to have a list of goals but how are they to be achieved? The word is out on the 'Occupy Movement', the protesting has raised awareness, there would be very few people who haven't heard of it, but the simple fact is there is no actual next step, no plan of action, so of course support will dwindle. It's been going for months so is there any actual plan of action yet?

Re:Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

If i were drilling down to that level of unsupported, baseless, ridiculousness as though it were actually something that would happen i think i'd be more concerned about what will happen when all computers suddenly become self-aware and wage war on the human race. Thankfully both scenarios are completely baseless and exist solely in the minds of conspiracy theorists and tin-foil-hat-wearing nut-jobs. The reality is that phones these days are - for the most part - more open than they used to be.

Re:Who cares

[spamking]

If it was legal who would care? Who would know it was pirated?

Hold up wait what?

[Dyinobal]

Why would something that is legal now suddenly become illegal after three years? Can anyone explain why, something should ever suddenly become legal after being ruled legal for a 'duration of three years'? Is it so the government makes sure they have something to do?

Re:Hold up wait what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMCA makes circumventing digital security illegal - and this could include jailbreaking your phone / tablet / computer if it ever comes to that.
It has a provision for making exceptions, but unlike the DMCA the exceptions only last for three years. If they're not renewed they automatically lapse.

Re:Hold up wait what?

[Microlith]

Because of this:

- Jailbreaking breaks the security on the iPhone, thus putting the tools in violation of the DMCA
- The LoC granted an exception to the DMCA for jailbreaking tools in the interest of enabling compatibility.

It's part of the DMCA, and its complete and total pro-corporate bias. All you jailbreaking Apple fans should watch as Apple fights the exemption renewal. They hate you and want you back in the box, and to never talk about it.

Re:Hold up wait what?

[theexaptation]

The reason that it expires (just like a lot of tax loopholes) is so that another round of fund raising can begin for both sides of a divisive issue.
Setting it to expire is how they keep the campaign coffers full.
It is the government version of vendor lock in.

Re:Hold up wait what?

[Microlith]

Except that this isn't going through Congress. It goes through the Library of Congress.

Re:Hold up wait what?

[CaptainLard]

Well you know what they say, "theres nothing more permanent than a temporary government program/law/tax/etc.". Maybe its due for one such law to work out in favor of the tinkerers...

Re:Hold up wait what?

[Hentes]

It's a property of the legal system that mandates laws to have a start date and allows for an optional expire date. This is mostly used to limit the duration of an executive order or decree, but it's not limited to just that.

Re:Hold up wait what?

[Sarten-X]

Don't confuse the issue. We all know how evil, corrupt, and greedy* those librarians are! This is clearly an attempt to ensure they're not completely obsolete as books become irrelevant.

*Source: firsthand knowledge. My wife is a librarian, and she steals the bedsheets every night.

Re:Hold up wait what?

[Anonymous Coward]

It says that they have to review exemption and make sure that it isn't allowing copyright infringement. I bet the fact that jail breaking is being used to allow users to install pirated software on their devices will be a big blowback towards the efforts. If that becomes the case, Apple will steamroll the persons making the software that allows one to jailbreak phones.

Re:Hold up wait what?

[PPH]

Because the open platform and the power to do with it what you want was what convinced you to invest money in the hardware. Now that they've got you, they're tightening the leash.

Haven't you learned anything from how free samples of crack work?

Re:Hold up wait what?

[nurb432]

Its a tactic to get their way by making people think they are getting their way, but in a few years it quietly expires and goes the way of what congress really wanted if no one notices.

Re:Hold up wait what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Say, where do I get these free samples of crack? Because I hear about them a lot online, but never been able to get any IRL. Asked my herbs guy if I could get some (said I was thinking about trying coke, but didn't really know what it was like), and he just laughed his arse off, then charged me a 10% premium on my herbs "fo' puttin up wid yo' dumbass questions'.

Is this one of those things where you have to be a grade-school kid in the inner city to have drug pushers give you free, candy-flavored samples? Or just a flat-out lie?

Re:Hold up wait what?

[PPH]

Asked my herbs guy if I could get some

He's already got you paying. Why spread your discretionary cash around between multiple vendors?

then charged me a 10% premium on my herbs

You paid it too. Didn't you?

Re:Hold up wait what?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is confusing about it?
Things that are legal can become illegal, things can be made legal again.

I really dont get your sense of confusion on this. It is a pretty basic concept of a legal system.
and in this case they took a practical approach to it and said lets see how it goes before making a sweeping statement.

Re:Hold up wait what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the explicit LoC exception is particularly necessary (and frankly is disgusting - the default operation should be permissive). IANAL, but my opinion is that the first amendment should protect your right to develop & disseminate the tools & potentially even a layperson's use of the tool (similar to the arguments made for encryption in the 90s). Whether or not that would actually hold, is a different matter.

Furthermore, the DMCA explicitly excludes prosecution of tools for the sake of compatibility too.

Re:Hold up wait what?

[bratwiz]

I actually agree with this. If people on Slashdot would stop BITCHING for a change (Yeah, I know...) and start VOTING instead, they could have practically anything their little Freedom-Loving Geeky hearts desire. But that's the problem with the Freedom-Loving Geeky heart types, they're so hell-bent on being independent and "free" about the only thing they CAN agree upon is access to the Internet, and even THAT only happens by sheer accident and coincidence.

Tired of DRM, DMCA, Fucked-up Patents and Copyrights gone Wild?

DO something about it for a change. Vote AGAINST the Congress-critters that don't support your views. Get together with fellow Slashdotters (probably need to ask your Moms if you can have friends over in her basement) and form Political Action Committees and CHANGE the system.

The wealthy elite and corporations have MONEY on their side, but the Slashdot crowd has raw VOTES, which even in today's totally warped and corrupt system, still win, over the dollars.

And stop buying into the candidates that THEY push foward-- let's push out some of our OWN.

Re:Hold up wait what?

[Anonymous Coward]

“The library is the worst group of people ever assembled in history. They're mean, conniving, rude, and extremely well-read, which makes them dangerous.”

-- Leslie Knope

Re:Hold up wait what?

[Dyinobal]

I did vote against them, but then when they were in office they didn't do what they said they would. All their, talk and elections promises were just that. Promises and no one could hold them to them. Empty words from men in empty suits owned by someone else.

Re:Hold up wait what?

[bratwiz]

So that's it, huh?

You must be an awful engineer.

Try something one time and if it doesn't work you give up.

Dude, if those people you elected won't do their jobs-- what they promised you they would do...

F I R E their fucking asses and get NEW ones.

Sheesh. I really can't believe how colossally S T U P I D the sheeple in this country can be.

We have 350 MILLION PEOPLE in this country, give or take a few. And even if you get rid of two-thirds of them, for any reason you like, that's still a whopping 100 million or more left to pick from. How come we only vote for TWO???

Its supposed to be by the people, of the people and for the people. But if all you ever get is a measly TWO or THREE candidates to pick from and its the SAME SCUMBAGS over and over-- you can't very well use that by the people of the people line of bullshit any longer.

So you're HONESTLY gonna tell me you just roll over and TAKE IT when it doesn't work the first time, eh?

I'm glad you don't work on MY team.

Now let's get out there and pick some of our OWN candidates for a change. People WE like. People who REALLY represent OUR values. People who will DO what they say they will do or KNOW they will go home as a result.

It's not just about THEM, the candidates, its also about US, the citizens. If all you care is that you cast a vote and it didn't work out-- what kind of a pathetic citizen are YOU anyway?

Get up, get mad, get even.

They got bucks and an army of lobbyists.

We got votes.

Its the votes that matter. They use MARKETING to sway votes. You can choose to listen to them, let them do your thinking for you-- or you can think for yourself and tell them to go pound sand and find someone you like better.

It REALLY IS that simple.

Re:Hold up wait what?

[tragedy]

Yes, wouldn't it be nice if the DMCA had a sunset provision too? Personally, I think all new laws should have sunset provisions without some sort of actual constitutional amendment-like system to make them permanent. I also think they should need to be read in their entirety, on record in the house and senate before they get to vote on them every time.

Re:Hold up wait what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The wealthy elite and corporations have MONEY on their side, but the Slashdot crowd has raw VOTES, which even in today's totally warped and corrupt system, still win, over the dollars.

and how many votes is that, compared to the larger demographic of voters who are easily swooned by political campaigning? that's one of the problems of democracy, it shows you how powerless you are if pitted against a larger number of idiots.

Re:Hold up wait what?

[Anonymous Coward]

F I R E their fucking asses and get NEW ones.

and the new ones would actually be the same (if not worse) than the old ones. rinse and repeat.

And even if you get rid of two-thirds of them, for any reason you like, that's still a whopping 100 million or more left to pick from. How come we only vote for TWO???

because the TWO people in question have the funds to make themselves known?

Its supposed to be by the people, of the people and for the people.

remember: corporations are people

Now let's get out there and pick some of our OWN candidates for a change. People WE like. People who REALLY represent OUR values. People who will DO what they say they will do or KNOW they will go home as a result.

i would really like to do that, but reality has disagreed with me with every attempt

Its the votes that matter. They use MARKETING to sway votes. You can choose to listen to them, let them do your thinking for you-- or you can think for yourself and tell them to go pound sand and find someone you like better.

how about the majority? remember, the majority is not as studious as we are in terms of "educating themselves." seriously, if all of us had that kind of attitude, we'd be living in a world without Fox news or CNN

Re:Hold up wait what?

[bratwiz]

And you're even more powerless if you don't even try.

Re:Hold up wait what?

[samjam]

When you've paid enough 10% for dumbass questions, you'll have paid enough for your free crack

Re:Hold up wait what?

[fremsley471]

And one of those two could be Newt Gingrich! Says everything about the process of picking candidates. Look at his record on marriage, lobbying/money, racist [food-stamp president, what sort of shit is that?], together with levels of hypocrisy beyond invention. Incredible. The idea of President Gingrich was laughable 10 years ago. What changed?

Specifying by shape???

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

There is something just heartbreakingly pathetic at the notion that the EFF is going to have to petition to get further devices included, distinguished largely by shape from those originally included, rather than it being a given that the device you buy, you own.

Perversely, I sometimes wonder if the situation would be improved if makers of 'traditional' categories of objects, like cars and appliances and firearms, were to start getting their DRM on and building systems that cryptographically verify every FRU's TPM on start and enter a lockout that can only be cleared by an authorized dealer if any tampering is suspected... Yeah, it'd make those product categories horribly worse; but it might finally give the computer-clueless some idea of just how insane the world of EULAs, DRM, and assorted device lockdown really is...

Re:Specifying by shape???

[viperidaenz]

distinguished solely by shape

That's better

Re:Specifying by shape???

[Hillgiant]

I sometimes wonder if the situation would be improved if makers of 'traditional' categories of objects, like cars ... verify every FRU's TPM on start and enter a lockout that can only be cleared by an authorized dealer if any tampering is suspected.

They already do that. Though, I guess "lip mode" may not fully qualify as a "lockout".

Re:Specifying by shape???

[bratwiz]

So STOP BUYING them!

Sheesh.

Just STOP.

When they can't sell any more of them, they'll get the message.

Re:Specifying by shape???

[Voyager529]

To be fair, only a subset sport a baseband.

Re:Specifying by shape???

[Deliveranc3]

I agree, didn't we solve this in the "Computer" "Space" already? Would you buy a computer that would automatically install windows8 and you couldn't install Linux on? Did you just look at your pocket?

Let's not make the debate about phones: the SLASHDOT phone maker, Nokia, with their phones that run linux (provided you're willing to work your ass off and don't need a phone phone) just shut down. Android seems modifiable but it's hit or miss. I expect some kind of theme thing to keep casual users happy. Apple's the sphinx (Modpoint!), but while they let the truly hardcore keep their jailbroken phones what they do in computer land suggests their phones will always be "Das Apple Playbox! Giggling verbotten! And dis bittorrent!".

Microsoft just Xbox'd. They're getting ready to 360, which will be frighteningly successful, why because Gears of War is FUN!

OSS hasn't really gotten behind any specific hardware, why? Because the DMCA looms over every phone, and counting on the next company to be as nice as IBM is a poor bet.

Let's keep the debate about Computers in any case, boxes... that are meant to control information together. And why we shouldn't be allowed to do that, like children, terrorists and reactionary voting.

Re:Specifying by shape???

[marcansoft]

Sounds like you want to support comment "4", which is the SFLC's attempt at getting *all* personal computer devices exempted.

Expire?

[Anonymous Coward]

How.. Jul 2010 was 18 months ago, If anything we have till Jul 2013 ?!

Re:Expire?

[Sarten-X]

The petitions have to start going out now, and be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the LoC before the 2013 deadline.

They were asking for more than that

[Anonymous Coward]

The email they sent me included a reference to ALL consumer devices, gaming consoles, phones, everything.

As for who cares? I care, I don't want to have to do the damned legwork to root everything myself, it's nice for people to be able to share tips and help each other openly (and searchably) rather than have to hide it all in some ridiculous cloak and dagger game.

Re:heartbreakingly pathetic

[TaoPhoenix]

Perfect phrase! .gov pulverizes us with new copyright treaties, then we have to ASK to KEEP the exceptions! Trouble is, y'all have followed the pace of things, the climate is WAY worse than 3 years ago - the Corp-Gov hydra is smelling blood and wants to go for the kill.

Sheer stupitdity

[Anonymous Coward]

So you can buy a $35K car and trick it out but you can't buy a $200 pone and jailbreak it. This country is getting very sad. I guess if the phone companies made money off of jail breaking then they would promote it.

Re:Sheer stupitdity

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Don't worry, consumer. Your ECU will be verifying the 'authenticity' of all peripherals on the local bus before authorizing ignition soon enough.

Re:Sheer stupitdity

[HornWumpus]

Trick it out too much and the cops will take it away and crush it.

They hate cars faster then theirs.

Re:Sheer stupitdity

[mlts]

Believe it or not, on some makes of cars, the ECM/TCM will check if it is tampered with, and when taken to a service depot, the entire warranty will be voided.

It took about a year for people to "jailbreak" the latest EcoBoost engines so one can run a custom tune on them.

Re:Sheer stupitdity

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

You sound more informed in the area than I: Have any vehicle manufacturers taken to using emissions regulations to add legal teeth to their DRM, in the way that Lexmark tried with printer cartridges and the DMCA, or a fair number of wireless device vendors use FCC regulations to justify a binary regulatory firmware?

Re:Sheer stupitdity

[element-o.p.]

This may not be exactly what you are asking about, but as I understand, every make and model of car currently sold in the U.S. must come with a mandatory 7-year warranty on the catalytic converter for emissions purposes. It is illegal to remove the factory catalytic converter and install any aftermarket catalytic converter unless the converter has failed (in which case, it is eligible to be replaced under warranty).

Many hot-rodders attempt to get around this restriction by sticking a screwdriver through the converter and claim it was "damaged" during normal use so they can install a less restrictive aftermarket unit before the warranty period has expired.

Re:Sheer stupitdity

[mlts]

Here in TX, there are vans which actually aim a laser at exhaust to try to detect those types of things, and pull people over immediately and impound their ride.

What is affected is tuning the engine, such as giving a couple better horsepower, changing response of the transmission, changing shift points, advancing timing to get a better burn with higher octane gas, etc. In fact, sometimes you can tune some engines where the MPG gain from using premium unleaded is more than the difference in cost.

Tunes is what car/engine makers are trying their best to stamp out. Some car makers have explicitly told their dealers to look for traces of tunes and mark warranties void if found. Other vehicles will just deactivate until completely re-flashed at the dealer.

Why are car makers wanting to do this? Some day that it keeps them from adding 2-5 horsepower per year to their vehicles as a selling point. Others just are protective of their engines and view consumers modding their stuff as scumbags.

Re:Sheer stupitdity

[element-o.p.]

Also, there is some speculation that some aftermarket parts screw up other parts. As an example, I have used K&N air filters on the two Eagle Talons I used to own. I noticed that in both Talons, I had to replace the mass airflow sensor shortly after installing the air filters. A Google search suggested that the oil on the K&&N filters was possibly leaking through the filter and coating the wire on the MAF sensor, causing it to fail. Sounds plausible, I guess, but I don't know the K&N was really the culprit on my cars.

<shrug>

It's Apple vs. PC. Is it better to own the ecosystem, and guarantee that your products work well together, or better to allow customers to add the components they want at the risk of a potentially less stable product? You can make an argument either way.

Re:Sheer stupitdity

[adolf]

Did you try cleaning the MAF? CRC makes a spray-goo just for that.

(And obviously it doesn't matter for you now, but I'd simply like to know for my own reference in the future.)

Re:Sheer stupitdity

[Bob the Super Hamste]

It probably didn't fail but got out of spec. The way a MAF sensor works is that when it gets coated with something like oil it starts to get inaccurate readings because the coating changes the heating/cooling rate of the wire used in the sensor. As another poster has mentioned there are chemicals that work for cleaning the MAF sensor. CRC makes some wonderful products and I would recommend it, granted it is a bit expensive for a can of MAF sensor cleaner but it is much cheaper than buying a new MAF sensor. I also have a vehicle with a K&N air filter and have noticed similar things. The permanent fix is to clean your filter and give it a lighter coating of oil. From the factory they are just caked in it I only coat the outward facing side of the filter with oil as the air flow will drive the oil into the filter but not much or any makes it past the filter.

Re:Sheer stupitdity

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I have used it and it does work. Even used it on vehicles that don't have an oiled air filters and it has spared me the cost of a replacement MAF sensor. My wife has a 2000 VW Jetta and it was throwing a code that indicated that MAF might be out of spec. I hosed the MAF sensor down with the CRC MAF cleaner, cleared the code, and haven't seen it pop back up in the past 2 years. The car runs a bit closer to factory new now as well so the sensor was definitely out of spec. I also suggest spraying it out side as it is a rather smelly product, but not as bad a carb cleaner.

Re:Sheer stupitdity

[Bob the Super Hamste]

It is actually an 8 year 80,000 mile warranty for certain emission related parts while others are covered by a 2 year 24,000 mile warranty. For reference see this document from the EPA that covers the regulation.

Re:Sheer stupitdity

[Bob the Super Hamste]

No they won't crush it because it is tricked out too much or it's faster than theirs, but because it violates laws or you were being an idiot. Like street racing, have those stupid ground effect lights, having tires that stick out of the wheel wells, installing a gigantic fart pipe, peeling out, turning it into a pollution factory, or driving like a retard.

Re:Sheer stupitdity

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Not that I know for sure of but it wouldn't surprise me as they are know for finding ways to get out of warranty repairs and being as dodgy as possible about it. I wonder what will happen here shortly in Minnesota with our 20% ethanol requirement that starts in 2013 since all of them have claimed that it is unapproved fuel for non flex fuel vehicles and will not cover fuel related warranty problems. So basically anything that fails that the fuel or exhaust touches won't be covered.

Re:Sheer stupitdity

[adolf]

Cool enough.

I have used it on my 1995 (ODB-I, so it's reluctant to throw a code for anything, ever -- even if it's barely running) BMW while doing early troubleshooting on a couple of issues, and it didn't do anything at all. (Which makes sense, because it wasn't a MAF problem anyway -- it was intermittent weirdness from one or more ignition coils.)

Glad to hear that it will work in instances where the MAF is actually being difficult, and that the product does have merit. MAFs are ridiculously simple things, with a ridiculously-high price tag.

Re:Sheer stupitdity

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I have had issues with ignition coils on BMWs as well. It seems that the insulation on them isn't as durable as it should be so when it gets a bit humid or damp they develop an intermittent misfire. It seems that the aftermarket coil packs (not Bosch) have better insulation and resolve the problem. I had a 96 318ti and now have a 97 540i and those throw a code as soon as something might be out of spec but your 95 is probably still OBD 1 or 1.5 so substantially fewer codes.

Re:Sheer stupitdity

[adolf]

Yeah, it's never thrown a code about anything -- ever. Not even in stomp-test mode. The 6-cyl E36 series was all ODB-I until '96, and then it got an updated six-cylinder engine and became ODB-II...along with less engine output and a change in model numbers (325i became 323i, 330i became 328i, even though displacement was the same).

I fed it six new Bosch coils a couple of years ago, since the economical choices at that particular point were either Bosch or random generic (or house brand) Chinese shit. The new coils are put together differently than the OEM Bosch ones that came on the '95, or the ones I'd been using from a '93 donor car. They've been working perfectly and I think will work fine for a long while, but time will tell...

I cant wait thousands of 12 year olds in jail..

[Rivalz]

We need to create a new arm of the government now to fight this menace to society.
We need a badass name to instill fear in teenagers to curb their illicit jailbreaking habits.

An elite squad named...
A.J.A.C.K.A.S.S
Anti Jailbreaking And Computer Knowledge Agianst Stupid Senators

Re:I cant wait thousands of 12 year olds in jail..

[bratwiz]

How about:

"Computer-Oblivious, No-Good Repugnant Elitist Sophist Scumbags"

Or just "C.O.N.G.R.E.S.S." for short...

Re:I cant wait thousands of 12 year olds in jail..

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Bravo to you fine sir. I now need to find some paper towels to clean up some tea.

Re:Who cares / Exactly Badly Needed Semantics

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone, 'stop calling it jailbreaking', and start calling it a Free Country..

A weird place that USA

[Teun]

On the one hand you can in many jurisdictions legally shoot (take the life of) someone that trespasses your land/ house or car and on the other hand you can be locked up for modifying your own paid for appliance.

While the outside world has for many years thought the USofA was the most materialistic nation on earth...

Re:A weird place that USA

[Idbar]

Amazing indeed. A place where a company is legally prosecuted for antitrust, for not allowing to uninstall their browser. Yet other companies attack their customers for trying to uninstall or modify any other part of their system.

Ah... how nice is being on the side that makes the rules.

Re:A weird place that USA

[bigdavex]

On the one hand you can in many jurisdictions legally shoot (take the life of) someone that trespasses your land/ house or car and on the other hand you can be locked up for modifying your own paid for appliance.

Don't worry; these inconsistencies will soon be addressed by the court system. Apple will be able to legally shoot you for modifying a phone.

Re:A weird place that USA

[steveha]

On the one hand you can in many jurisdictions legally shoot (take the life of) someone that trespasses your land/ house or car

That's actually not true. At all.

I have studied this issue, including taking an all-day class taught by Massad Ayoob. Nobody is ever allowed to "take the life of" another person. A person is only allowed to shoot someone (i.e., use potentially lethal force) to stop that person when he is causing an immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent.

If you see a guy holding a knife and running towards another person, and you have reason to believe he is planning to use that knife (e.g. he is shouting "Bitch! I'll kill you!"), you are probably legally in the clear to shoot him, if that is the only way you can stop him.

If you see a guy plunge a knife into another person, and then he flings the knife on the ground and runs away, you are not clear to shoot him. You aren't allowed to do anything unless there is an immediate danger; you certainly aren't allowed to punish someone yourself.

If you shoot someone and he keels over, you are not allowed to continue shooting him. If you have stopped him by shooting him, you no longer are clear to shoot him. If he then grabs for a gun or something, the imminent danger is back and you could shoot him again.

And while you are generally allowed to use "reasonable" force to stop a theft in progress, potentially lethal force is never authorized in defense of mere property.

And even if you obey the above guidelines, you may be hauled into court on criminal charges; you will probably win, but you will still have to pay for a lawyer and it's a big deal. And you might lose. In some places (like Washington, D.C. or New York City) you may be charged with gun control law violations even if what you did with the gun saved a life. And even if you avoid or are cleared of criminal charges, you may be hauled into court on civil charges from the person you shot or his surviving family.

I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice, etc.

steveha

Too bad ALL laws don't expire

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be nice if all laws had a sunset scheme... something like:

Law originally passed unanimously: no sunset review needed

Law originally passed 75% to 25%: ok to "bundle" with other laws in a simple majority re-confirmation every 10 years.

Law originally passed with simple majority less than 75%? requires single-issue re-confirmation every 3 years.

Re:Too bad ALL laws don't expire

[Sarten-X]

I actually rather like that. Sure, its a lot more paperwork and problems for Congress... but then maybe they'll be less likely to waste time on stupid things.

Re:Too bad ALL laws don't expire

[dnahelicase]

It would be nice if all laws had a sunset scheme..

If only I had mod points.!

Why stop at laws? Let's make things like copyright expire too!

Re:Too bad ALL laws don't expire

[bky1701]

That's fine and good, until you have environmental regulations expiring in a divided congress. Just look at the debt shenanigans if you want to know why your suggestion would never work.

Re:Too bad ALL laws don't expire

[Bucky24]

Cmon, considering how long it takes Congress to pass NEW laws, if we had a sunset clause like this nothing would ever get done.

Re:Too bad ALL laws don't expire

[EvanED]

While I like the sentiment, and I think I've expressed it too in the past, I think it smells like the potential for a lot of unintended consequences. For instance, imagine that some folks want to add some provision to the law. It'd probably be way easier to do that on the back of a vote to renew (since congress "has to" act anyway) then it would be to go through the whole legislative process to amend.

It also seems like it'd lead to a lot more see-sawing of laws: party A is in control and passes some legislation, party B takes over and lets it lapse, party A takes over and passes it again, etc.

Re:Too bad ALL laws don't expire

[deblau]

Are you crazy?? Do you know how many laws there are? They'd be constantly reviewing the old laws, and nothing new would get done...

On second thought, this is a brilliant strategy!

Re:Too bad ALL laws don't expire

[KiloByte]

Cmon, considering how long it takes Congress to pass NEW laws, if we had a sunset clause like this nothing would ever get done.

That's the whole point!

Re:Too bad ALL laws don't expire

[JustNiz]

No way.
I like the fact that as a Freeman of the city of London, I have ancient legal permission to drive my herd of sheep across Tower bridge during rush hour.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/425364.stm

Re:Too bad ALL laws don't expire

[froggymana]

Cmon, considering how long it takes Congress to pass NEW laws, if we had a sunset clause like this nothing would ever get done.

And that's different from now, how?

Re:Too bad ALL laws don't expire

[Bo'Bob'O]

So you think that the US constitution should be up for re-confirmation every 10 years?

Re:Too bad ALL laws don't expire

[LordLucless]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

The vast majority of the time, new laws do not need to be passed. As the body of legislation builds up, there should be fewer and fewer edge-cases requiring legislation, with exceptions for massive, game-changing developments (such as the explosion of internet availability).

A congress that did nothing except in exceptional circumstances would be a net gain over one that passes unneeded legislation the majority of the time, and passes kneejerk laws in response to exceptional events, so they can get back to the usual business of rubberstamping corporate lobbyist legislation.

Re:Too bad ALL laws don't expire

[Anonymous Coward]

The US Constitution is not, itself a law, per se, but the legal authority upon which the country was founded.

And it would be nice, as long as we are dreaming, if the US congress was required to cite said document to qualify legislation to even be considered for a vote in that body.

If something needs doing that the Federal government was not supposed to do, then the States can do it. If something is a really, really, really, good idea, then the Constitution can be amended. Sure, it is "difficult", but it was meant to be, precisely to prevent the government from becoming "too big" in the first place.

Re:Too bad ALL laws don't expire

[Anonymous Coward]

Would that be so bad? Times change, maybe laws should too.

Game Consoles

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we get game consoles added as an expemtion as well? Please?

Re:Game Consoles

[marcansoft]

From TFA:

Where the form says “Comment number(s) of proposed classes of works to which you are responding,” enter a “3” if you’re writing about game consoles or a “5” if you’re writing about smartphones or tablets. You might consider also entering a "4" to submit your comments in support of an exemption request proposed by the Software Freedom Law Center to allow jailbreaking of "personal computing devices."

Who's property

[Grindalf]

So if I buy such a device, who's property is it then? This seems to contradict the property laws ...

Re:Who's property

[future assassin]

Ahh but thats the catch. They won't tell you that and just stick introducing laws for the software parts of the hardware. You want to mod the phone to run an OS other than the one that came with it, sorry to bad its illegal to remove the drm inorder to remove the original os. Imagine the out cry if all of a sudden you couldn't do ANYTHING with the physical part of the device.

Re:Who's property

[Em Adespoton]

If you buy such a device, it's your property. However, in order to do anything useful, you'll either need to flash the device yourself (this lets you *replace* the software, which is legal), or agree to the software license and then circumvent the software somehow -- and the software does NOT belong to you -- it belongs to the copyright holder, and they let you run it on your device.

If you can reflash (hardware reflash, not software reflash via the software already provided by the manufacturer) the device and install some other system on it, DMCA isn't broken.

Kind of like you can buy a car, but circumventing the on-board software is illegal. Same went for buying a printer and hacking the firmware to let you use any printer cartridge, until this got an exemption for compatibility reasons.

Re:Who's property

[JustNiz]

Most often the way it works is:
The physical hardware is yours, The software isn't.
You just get a license to run the software. The license usually includes clauses specifically against reverse-engineering or circumnavigating any part of the software or its 'security measures'.
Then they simply find a way to make it that you have to agree to be bound by the licence terms in order to use the product.
or
b) By even turning on the product, you automatically have signified your acceptance of being bound by the licence terms.

Re:Who's property

[Anonymous Coward]

If you buy such a device, it's your property. However, in order to do anything useful, you'll either need to flash the device yourself (this lets you *replace* the software, which is legal), or agree to the software license and then circumvent the software somehow -- and the software does NOT belong to you -- it belongs to the copyright holder, and they let you run it on your device.

You can't have it both ways, if I buy a device with software that can't be removed before I buy it, then you have sold me both and the rights that follows with them as my new property. If you want special "rights" to the software you have to sell/rent/.. it separately.

Re:Who's property

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I smell a legal argument here. One could argue that you chose to not run their software and since you aren't running their software you are no longer bound to the EULA for that software. Any real lawyers know if this plausible and valid as I would have thought this would have been a logically correct argument?

Re:Who's property

[Anonymous Coward]

You buy the licencess right to use the device, you do not own it as such.

Re:Who's property

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Software cannot be owned.
Try it for a change, instead of parroting the crap of criminal organizations.
I just copied your comment into a file in my Gnutella folder. Now what? What does your "intellectual property" lie mean? *Nothing*! It doesn't mean shit! It's a delusion you tell yourself.
You can say you *made* it. Everything else was just invented for *distributors* to harm creative people by paying them *once*, and then going on and "selling" it infinite times for infinite money, without lifting a single finger!
That's also why it's worth nothing: There's no work involved!

Software, and in fact any form of information, is not a product. Never was, never will be. The *creation* of information is a service. *That* one can be paid.
And you can be attributed as the one who made it. But that's it.

In this aspect, a software developer is exactly like a house painter. And the software is the painted wall. not the paint! Not the wall! The structural property "painted like $this".

Imagine a house painter or car mechanic acting like you do and like the media Mafia does. It's utterly absurd and it's quite obvious what the point of all this in.
Protip: It has nothing at all to do with artists, writers, software developers, ... or reality.

Re:Who's property

[toriver]

Um, different laws apply to hardware and software, because, they are quite different things. If you want them to be treated the same, change the laws first. But then be aware that you will be playing into the hands of those that want to treat piracy as theft of property...

Re:Who's property

[Em Adespoton]

Sorry, but no matter what you say, there are two methods to ownership... by force, or by agreement. By agreement, the corporations own the software. By force the government backs them up.

Just because information *wants* to be free doesn't mean it always *is*.

No matter what you want to happen, there will always be powerful people exerting control.

Re:Who's property

[Anonymous Coward]

In this aspect, a software developer is exactly like a house painter. And the software is the painted wall. not the paint! Not the wall! The structural property "painted like $this".

Ok then, i suppose you would be quite happy to contract a developer to code an OS for your new device from scratch every time you buy one then? Otherwise let me know when i can download a painted wall for no effort.

Sure you could get a team of developers to write an OS and then just copy it, but who's going to pay for the initial copy? There's always the open source model, but open source isn't exactly ruling the world is it. People need to eat, that includes software devs, so how do you propose to pay them?

The Pigs Are Creating a Counter-Market

[MarkvW]

In their greed, the pigs are fuel the market for hardware that remains jailbreakable.

GPL should require vendors to ship with root

[nightfire-unique]

Even if someone intervenes and solves this legal issue, I don't think that's good enough. Having access to tinker and enhance is the reason these devices exist at all.

Imagine if 90s PCs were crippled this way. Would Linux, or its multibillion dollar server industry even exist? Apache? Tomcat? Free software can't survive in such a hostile environment. The anti-intellectualism must stop.

While we do have the ability to call the shots, I suggest that the next GPL revision include an additional clause:

Redistribution privileges granted by the GPLv4 are revoked from all manufacturers who ship devices that don't provide to the end user an easy, supported method of superuser privilege escalation.

The good news is, it would have two effects. Smart vendors would fix their devices to comply. The evil ones would fork the kernel and anything else using the new license, and eventually die off without community support.

Remember. We have the money, and we have the power. Not Hollywood. Hollywood is irrelevant.

Re:GPL should require vendors to ship with root

[Microlith]

The GPLv3 effectively does require that. It bars the use of GPLv3 software in things that require jailbreaking, or otherwise keep the user trapped and unable to rebuild and replace the GPLv3 binaries. Slightly different terminology, but same effect (the anti-TiVOization clause.)

Having access to tinker and enhance is the reason these devices exist at all.

Not quite. However, that should be something all users are able to do without interference from the manufacturer.

Smart vendors would fix their devices to comply. The evil ones would fork the kernel and anything else using the new license, and eventually die off without community support.

WRT GPLv3, they're already not using the GNU coreutils. And the Linux kernel will never be anything but GPLv2.

We have the money, and we have the power. Not Hollywood. Hollywood is irrelevant.

But you don't have someone like Chris Dodd, who can go on Fox News and threaten congressmen for not standing up to the American populace to force bad laws through.

Re:GPL should require vendors to ship with root

[Deliveranc3]

Here here for having a more aggressive GPLv4! I know the GPLv3 went to far (in some areas not in others) but there's no reason not to have a GPLv2.1 and 3.1 to address issues.

The number of patents going into this terrifying copyright system, especially the number that could or would have been open sourced, if an acceptable and iconic licence was available.

That said the forces of "Justice" have decided people shouldn't have devices in their pockets that they have more personal control over than the device under their desk that they already fear? Linux took years, but it's ready. It runs more hardware than anything else. What makes them think something similar won't happen to phones? What's their end plan? The only thing that makes sense from their position is to run for tyranny, but we'll keep hoping they're just blocking the exit for our protection.

Anyway I already have a G1, started buying up groups of them. I recommend it as an option if you want to spend $600 on phones (buy 5!). Basically, OSS should make it a bit faster. There are some very lightweight Linux's. Every time Google seems to be stopping the flow of updates the community threatens to consolidate all their patches and upgrades. Such a "ROM", would be a much better OS than that offered by Google, further it seems that it could be quite generic existing on lots of varied hardware. I like my G1 because it has a keyboard and that slow feeling that makes me know the government isn't watching :P I hope OSS in your pocket starts with Google. But I'm worried and I hope it gets away from Google quickly.

Branding is a BIG Deal in software, I want an OS on my phone that says "Best Operating System." I have no trouble with Google creating a bunch of advertising "channels" or "categories" and being a money drip for developers (80x160x24 x 40,000 = ). But the underlying OS should be open and free! I have so much shame for being a gamer (and needing windows), please make a place for us!

Anyway phones, more freedom yea. Gonna smoke.

Headline correction

[Anonymous Coward]

How about "EFF working to keep jailbreaking legal" as a headline? The OP (who has also linked to the article on his own retarded ad-filled site) is just sensationalising this shit to attract traffic / improve his pagerank. Better stories are available here and elsewhere.

Re:Headline correction

[jedidiah]

Sounds like the shrill cry of a wounded fanboy.

The fact is that Apple would see all jailbreaking be illegal if it were up to them.

The original title is an accurate portrayal of the situation better capturing the fact that jailbreaking would otherwise be illegal. It took consumer lobbying to be declared legal and it will lapse into being illegal again without active consumer lobbying.

This has to be done repeatedly.

The RC could still declare jailbreaking illegal again despite of what the EFF does.

A watered down approach to the subject really doesn't capture the essence of the situation here.

Re:Headline correction

[jones_supa]

Better stories are available here and elsewhere.

Here and elsewhere? Let's just try a little fix...

Better stories are available at PC Magazine and Engadget.

Maybe you should have bought a blackberry instead.

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, blackberry puts no restrictions on what the owner of a phone can do with it which would be YOU (or sometimes YOUR EMPLOYER).

Install whatever apps you like on YOUR phone.

Configure permissions for apps on YOUR phone any way you like.

Install apps from blackberry app world, or from anywhere else.

For all the OOOH!! Shiny!!! mindshare that iphone & android generates, at some point the general assholeness of these companies is something you should pay attention too.

Unfortunately there only appear to be 12 of us who still care and use blackberry. Maybe this is all a secret govt plot to get blackberry users to stop using phones with strong encryption...

If only other things were given a 3 year span

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it amazing that Congress can find whole ranges of things that can put into law forever (like spending and taxes) but can't seem to find a way to put the ability to modify a device you own there as well??

Maybe everything should sunset after 5 years, including copyright etc...

Re:If only other things were given a 3 year span

[mlts]

On one hand, it would be nice to have sunset provisions, but in reality, I can see what would end up sunsetted if this happened:

The Clean Air/Water Acts.
Acts making national parks/preserves/national forests.
Labor laws.
Minimum wage.
Bank regulations.

Re:If only other things were given a 3 year span

[nurb432]

Follow the money, then you will find your answer.

Other things that should be illegal too...

[stevenfuzz]

Upgrading a car stereo, getting suits tailored, Changing filters in air conditioners, Showering night club stamps off, Changing shoe laces, Singing along with a CD/mp3, Photoshop, Opening a computer... I mean, why would I have the right to root the cell phone/tablet I buy. Imagine if I enabled tethering, the world might end right then and there.

Revolution!

[Anonymous Coward]

You americans should make use of your right to carry a gun and revolt! Shoot the head of all politicians!

Re:Revolution!

[PPH]

Shoot the head of all politicians!

There's nothing up there. Aim for the pocketbook.

Re:Revolution!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. The real threat are the CEO's and other execs who have the money. Take them out and the money dries up for the politicians, then they'll just wither away. Of course if the politico also happens to be a CEO/exec then you deal with two problems with one bullet. Efficient.

Why are they locking something someone else owns.

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to know.

Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Too much deregulation is not a good thing. Keep jailbreaking illegal.

Re:Maybe you should have bought a blackberry inste

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, blackberry puts no restrictions on what the owner of a phone can do with it...

Except that RIM is using locked bootloaders*. That means, no, you don't get to do whatever you want because only RIM controls what software is allowed to run on the device.

* Definitely locked on their Playbook tablet, I'm not sure about all of their phones.

root and CarrierIQ

[djscoumoune]

Do mobile providers need root access when they install CarrierIQ ? If so could they be sued if this law wasn't renewed ?

Re:root and CarrierIQ

[Microlith]

Nope. Think for a bit why this is the case.

Unanimous consent

[tepples]

Law originally passed unanimously: no sunset review needed

And guess how both the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Copyright Term Extension Act passed.

Re:Why are they locking something someone else own

[arkane1234]

Money. If its locked, your constrained to apps sold in a particular channel.

Re:Very relevant XKCD

[newcastlejon]

Look, I've told you about this before. If you're not going to pick a relevant strip please pick a different one; there's even a search box provided.

Aspire X1

[tepples]

Acer makes an open game console. It's called the Aspire X1, it's about the size of an original Xbox 360 and can use its gamepads, and it runs all PC software. And unlike the major consoles, it has multiple app stores: Steam, Impulse, Desura, and GOG. There's even an adapter called the Retrode that lets it play classic games made for the Super NES and Sega Genesis.

Let's make PCs the fourth console.

Re:Aspire X1

[mjwx]

Acer makes an open game console. It's called the Aspire X1, it's about the size of an original Xbox 360 and can use its gamepads, and it runs all PC software. And unlike the major consoles, it has multiple app stores: Steam, Impulse, Desura, and GOG. There's even an adapter called the Retrode that lets it play classic games made for the Super NES and Sega Genesis.

Let's make PCs the fourth console.

Hell no.

PC gamers dont want the same kind of restrictions and dumbed down games that appear on consoles. Several manufacturers tried to consolise PC's before, they've all failed because of this reason.

Re:Aspire X1

[tepples]

PC gamers dont want the same kind of restrictions and dumbed down games that appear on consoles.

Then keep the PC capable of running everything that a PC can run, but just promote it as a console that actually "does everything", unlike what the PS3 fails to deliver. "You don't just have Twitter and Facebook; you have all of Twitter and Facebook. Even FarmVille. You don't just have streaming video; you have all of streaming video. You can even get Hulu for free." Then figure out how to express what mods are in a sound bite. The only "consolization" applied to the Aspire X1 is that it's in a smaller case.

The problem so far is that I've been told console-style games sell poorly on PCs because so few people want to connect a PC to a TV, and indie developers can't get a console-style game published at all because they first have to develop and publish a successful game in a genre more traditionally associated with PCs.

Direct link to the petition..

[__aasehi2499]

https://www.jailbreakingisnotacrime.org/

Re:Who cares / Exactly Badly Needed Semantics

[future assassin]

or call it what it is. Modifying my own property.

Re:Why are they locking something someone else own

[nurb432]

1 - because you are under contract with a carrier's network and they are requiring it to protect their network
2 - beacuse some industries are fighting for it to protect their content ( like mpaa/riaa )
3 - keep you coming back only to their store for content.

Re:Maybe you should have bought a blackberry inste

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that RIM is using locked bootloaders*. That means, no, you don't get to do whatever you want because only RIM controls what software is allowed to run on the device.

RIM phones only run the RIM OS. (I'm not talking about the playbook, which is a different animal).

The RIM OS always shows you what programs are installed (and you can remove them if you like).

But on the RIM OS you can run any application you like. RIM doesn't stop you. RIM isn't able to remove applications that YOU put on YOUR phone.

For example, not long ago the phone company in the United Arab Emirates tried to trick users into installing a new "firmware" which was actually spyware:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124827172417172239.html

Removing it was dead simple.

Always the same.

[forkfail]

The white hats have to win every single battle.

The black hats need only win one.

We need a critical mass of people who can think.

[Anonymous Coward]

I do care, but I speak with my money. I buy phones that the manufacturer allows me to hack / modify. 'fastboot oem unlock' is a glorious thing. I'd rather give money to a company that allows me to do what I want than fight the more controlling companies.

If enough other people did that too, we'd have a functional market economy.

Rooting

[HomelessInLaJolla]

Consider the difference between two time-wasting procedures:

10 for a=1 to 200000000
20 next a

and

10 read a
20 restore
30 goto 10
40 data "a"

Some time sharing systems will kill the former much earlier than the latter depending upon the throttles set for that kind of loop. READ has a much higher priority because of the nature of BASIC programming. BASIC contains both INPUT and GET. When running a program the priority of the BASIC interpreter (or the internally compiled code) allows for BASIC to have access to a priority in the keyboard queue. When running a BASIC program inside the interpreter that priority is no longer available to GET (GET will simply pass right through) because that priority, a bit in the code running inside of the OS, is necessary for the BASIC interpreter.

READ is similar in that it has access to that high priority bit. This is because BASIC is structured for program segment and DATA segment. There is no program code after DATA. This is an electronic load balancing mechanism that the kernel working with the power supply would know, in advance, how much load BASIC was applying to a very particular portion of the equation used in the load balancing circuitry. That is the inherent priority level that BASIC has access to within whatever surrounding OS or VM in which it is running. That is the priority of READ.

When writing a basic program, do not write:

10 a = 10

Write instead

10 read a
80000 end
95000 data 10

This will lead you to understand the hotwires available to BASIC. PEEK and POKE are running on similar priority levels and are mathematically related to the reason why the C=64 GET command worked properly within the hardware interpreter. If you are able to PEEK and POKE memory locations, for example, sequentially after the keyboard buffer in the C=64 environment it is possible to rotate the entire OS at the hardware level. Within most environments provided to BASIC interpreters the same mechanism does apply--if you are able to PEEK locations outside of the sandbox then you are able to POKE those locations back into DATA statements within the program and use READ to establish a hotwire.

Rooting of electronic devices? It's been going on for a while. The Jericho Mob has access to the superhypervisor console which is a management overlay for all of your electronic devices and it runs at the priority of the BASIC interpreter which talks directly to the power supply circuitry.

It is not The Man keeping you down. It is the rainbow-tards in the jericho parade and they're keeping The Man down, too.

Re:Who cares / Exactly Badly Needed Semantics

[Idbar]

What about calling it "Performance improvement by bloatware removal"? :)

Re:Maybe you should have bought a blackberry inste

[an unsound mind]

Android on the phones without a locked bootloader (like all Google-released Android phones) also allows just as much freedom.

That's a large reason why Blackberry's dead - if you really want it your freedom, Android can do it. Android even gives you the freedom of releasing a locked-down device, which is why Android sometimes isn't as free.

Re:Who cares / Exactly Badly Needed Semantics

[X10]

Everyone, 'stop calling it jailbreaking', and start calling it a Free Country..

Apparently, some legislators disagree with you, about your country being a Free Country.

Dear Eric Holder,

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you. Come and get me.

The Solution to all This is Ultra Simple

[bratwiz]

The solution to all this is simple, wrap your money in a EULA and a plastic bag which says "Opening this bag and depositing the money constitutes acceptance of the Monetary Remuneration End User License Agreement", and then use the EULA to state what the recipient can and cannot do with the money. They *can* use it to give their employees a raise, the *cannot* use it to buy Jaguars and Jacuzzis, etc. Personally, I'd vote for putting some really whacked-out stuff in there, just to get even a bit. Like maybe they're only allowed to use it in small bills bearing serial numbers which correspond to the Fibonacci sequence, or maybe they are only allowed to put it into the bank and not spend it at all. Maybe just visit is on alternate Thursdays.

If enough consumers did it, it wouldn't take very long for the purveyors and peddlers of gadget-porn to get the point. And while we're at it, maybe we could expand that concept to include payments to the RIAA, MPAA, Oil & Gas companies, and all of the other companies who are so busy trying to jam it down our throats. Let THEM see what its like to be on the RAW end for awhile.

Commerce and the Government

[okmijnuhb]

I believe that commerce and the government will conspire to enslave humanity until we are living our entire lives in cages like a commercial chicken farm.
Living and working in Foxxcom dormitories will seem like paradise, comparatively.

What?

[okmijnuhb]

That's wrong! What next, the 13th Amendment comes up for a vote every few years? Commerce, keep your dirty hand off my freedom!

What's the difference in getting a windows machine

[Cutting_Crew]

and wiping the hard drive to use linux? this isn't illegal is it? So whats the difference?

WHOSE!

[antdude]

Whose, not who is.

Re:Very relevant XKCD

[Runaway1956]

I wish they were spamming dotslash . . .

July 2010 + 3 years = ?

[Fnord666]

I'm a bit confused. If the exemption was approved in July 2010 and it lasts for three years, shouldn't it be good until July 2013? Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves a little bit here?

MY phone

[p51d007]

Screw the government, apple, google, HTC, motorola et al. MY phone...I will do with it as I please. I by a full price phone off contract, I'll d*mn well do with it as I SEE FIT. If it were a car, and you wanted to change the software chip, you can. If you want to pull out the stereo and install a different one, you can...no diff!

Re:MY phone

[digitalsolo]

Actually, if you change the programming of a car in many states (California for example) you could have it barred from use on the road and face heavy fines.

Welcome to the People's Republic of America.

Nuh-uh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Over Steve Jobs' dead body! Oh, wait...

Massive logical fallacies...

[cbhacking]

How the <REDACTED> did this get modded up??

Is that what's happening?

Yes, in countries that meet the criteria specified in the post you responded to, and even quoted: places where there are "*no* [effective] laws against copying somebody else's work" such as many of the Asian nations I've been to (Malaysia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Indonesia, etc.), and a lot of Africa as well. Also certain parts of South America, though it's slightly less widespread there (in my experience).

Do you see pirated DVDs and CDs on the shelves at Best Buy?

Well, they don't have Best Buy in those countries, but everywhere that you can buy a CD or DVD, from a streetside vendor's cart to a chain of media retailers with a presense in most large malls, is selling mostly if not entirely pirated CDs and DVDs, yes.

Can you tell me which theaters are showing pirated films?

In those countries? (Almost?) all of them. The hard part would be finding one which *isn't* doing so. The better ones will use copies that were made with something better than a handheld video camera pointed at the screen, but it will still have stupid things like subtitles in a language nobody in the country speaks (not English).

You'll also find photocopied "books" printed on standard-size paper and bound with plastic rings, CDs/DVDs listing 5 different popular pieces of software plus cracks and/or keygens, and copies of well-known photos or other graphical art (either in printed form or in bulk on a CD).

The interesting thing about all this copyright-ignored media is that, aside from a few pieces from successful "locals" (literally, fewer than ten per nation), it's produced elsewhere in the world - in the US, Canada, the EU, NZ, or Australia, typically - because in such countries it's feasible for people to actually make a living creating such content.

Why do the apologists for the ridiculous "intellectual property" laws always have to go to imaginary scenarios to try to make their case?

What do you have to smoke that you can quote somebody's post, including the conditions under which it is stted to apply and still completely fail to understand that it is not being stated to apply universally? Are you one of those idiot Americans (I'm a US citizen myself, for the record) who thinks that the USA is the entire world, or are you simply completely deluded?

Hell, there are artists who got their start by distributing their work on bittorrent sites. Without that "illegal copying" those artists would never have gotten a record contract.

You can't even construct a logical argument out of your own words, never mind when using anybody else's. If the copyright owner is putting the content online for redistribution, it's hardly "illegal copying" anymore. Copyright law allows for the owner of the copyright to distribute their works however they like.

Re:Massive logical fallacies...

[Splab]

You are pointing at countries where peoples average monthly salary is less than a BR or a trip to the movies (Denmark) and saying "hey lookie lookie, no IP laws and pirates are rampant".

Personally I belive IP laws are killing competition and producing worse content. Most of those illegal copies you mention are crap and will be bought by those who can't afford the real thing anyways. Make big companies compete with the pirates and soon you will see products consumers want, e.g. DVDs that goes straight to the movie rather than force you to sit through 10 mins. of commercials for something that was hot 10 years ago.

Re:Very relevant XKCD

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on, that's the joke. It's even the same damn strip that was completely irrelevant that you responded to last time!

and also..

[SuperDre]

I hope they also include consoles as that's exactly the same as with stuff like the iPhone..

Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

..is so overrated in the land of free

SFLC Petitioned For Jailbreaking Exception

[Anonymous Coward]

EFF isn't working alone here. SFLC submitted a petition to extend the jailbreaking exception to all computing devices. https://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2011/dec/02/proposed-dmca-exemption/

Correlation between unlocking and app freedom

[tepples]

There is a correlation between SIM unlocking and application permissions available to the user. AT&T Android phones, for example, initially did not allow the user to turn on "Unknown sources" until Amazon Appstore drummed up popular demand for the feature. And among smartphones that run J2ME applications, Nokia phones not customized by a carrier allow self-signed applications to request more useful permissions than the same phones customized by AT&T or T-Mobile allow.

Re:Who cares / Exactly Badly Needed Semantics

[Sloppy]

Kidnap rescuing, maybe?

re: chicken and egg

[King_TJ]

No argument with your claims of how copyrighted works are being treated in countries that have no real enforced copyright law.... but I'd also suggest there's a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation here. By that, I mean you're claiming it's "interesting" that all this bootlegged IP seems to be produced in the nations that DO have strong copyright law in place. But is that REALLY because the strong copyright legislation is required to get the movies, music, etc. produced? Or is it simply a case of nations like the United States perfecting the art of producing entertainment content, and thereby producing "world class" material that everyone else wants to view or listen to -- with copyright legislation an end result when those producers wanted more laws ensuring a "lock in" on their success?

I know as a U.S. citizen myself, I'm able to get my hands on plenty of movies produced in other countries, but much of what I've seen just looks like immature/amateurish attempts to achieve the production quality considered a minimum standard for a U.S. made film (Bollywood productions, etc.). Sometimes, the story lines of some of the Russian and Asian film are quite good (far superior to the cliche, tired stories Hollywood likes to rehash endlessly) -- but it's evident they don't have as well honed a system, from the quality of the acting to the quality of the filming to the quality of the directing.

Maybe I just think too highly of the U.S. made material because I live here -- but I suspect this is one of the few areas where the U.S. simply has a head-start on much of the rest of the world and more experience doing it well.

My phone. Fuck you corporate nazis.

[Anonymous Coward]

I will not ever pay for 1 bit of content on any platform until this crap changes.

I will purposely do everything I can to hurt these big nasty corporations including active distribution of 'copyrighted material' and modding MY technology possessions as well as showing others how to do it.

Have a nice day.

Re:My phone. Fuck you corporate nazis.

[toriver]

You buy their phone, then whine about doing so? Build your own instead! Heck, why not build your own phone system too, to thwart the evil operators!

no jailbreaking?

[Anonymous Coward]

so no jailbreaking -> people shift to open technologies -> apple dies?

Im fine with that.

Re:Very relevant XKCD

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't think you understand it