Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Asks Federal Government to Stop iPhone Jailbreaking
- Thread starter JD914
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Jailbreaking alters what is on the product that is under copyright, but it doesn't copy anything that is subject to the copyright. It removes something and adds something different. It's akin to crossing out a sentence and adding something new, but there isn't a "copy" of the OS. The addition is new and actually subject to the copyright of the author. There's a reason that iOS is 600 some MBs and the jailbreaks are under 5.
It is certainly questionable legally, but it's much more complicated than you are making it out to be.
Last edited:
Thank you. That's exactly where I wanted the conversation to go. Ownership of the device is not what matters, but what you can legally modify on it.
This jailbreaking question has been around quite a while.
Remember back when Apple first declared that jailbreaking voided the warranty? First off, that doesn't make any sense as their warranty is ONLY for hardware. Apple does NOT have a software warranty.
Secondly many people thought Apple was violating the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act that allows people to modify things they bought with third party pieces.
---
I believe that part of the reason they persue jailbreaking is because of a contractual obligation with AT&T. Back when the iPhone first came out, they had a little public spat over who bent most. Part of what was said was :
"Apple, (AT&T) added, also agreed to help stop the "bad guys" who would unofficially unlock the iPhone or its SIM card for use on competing networks."
---
For the more diligent reader, here are the relevant Copyright Office exemptions that allow jailbreaking for app modification and unlocking:
(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.
(3) 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.
I wouldn't do it again. I sold my jailbroken 3GS when the ip4 came out because I figured I could deal with it until a new jailbreak came out, and I didn't like the experience at all. I had forgotten what the stock OS was like. If I do end up getting another iPhone, which I'm highly doubting I will this time around, I'm gonna wait for the jb to be released before I buy.
Maybe not in actual law, but in practice then the £35 does cover the cost of the phone aswell. Its why sim only deals are so much cheaper - there is no phone cost to cover. The same goes for the "free" things you can get with some contracts (laptops, consoles etc). While they are technically free, the extra you will be paying per month will usually be enough to cover the value of the item.
The T-Mobile issue was to do with them changing the terms of the contract without any reasonable notice, and without letting current customers cancel their contract without a penalty (as Ofcom say you should be able to). It has nothing to do with the phone being "a gift" or not.
Last edited:
Another reason why apple sucks
http://www.redmondpie.com/apple-ask...r&utm_campaign=Feed:+RedmondPie+(Redmond+Pie)
It's my phone and i should be able to do whatever i want to do with it, FU Steve Jobs
Why do you do it? Is it for the extra functionality, or for the free apps? If its the former I agree with you but if its the latter then nothing justifies your actions. Overall I do want JB banned because most people probably use it to download apps for free - apps that other people not necessarily in big companies have designed.
In the US with postpaid providers you tend to pay the same price whether or not you've procured a "free" phone through them.
T-Mobile is odd in that they have a postpaid service option (Even More Plus -- still exists but it's hard to find!) that you can save about $10 or so monthly, and they DID have an option to pay the price of the unsubsidized phone in installments, a method I imagine Europeans do in some cases.
However, when you pay 199 to AT&T and get an iPhone in the US (that, or Verizon), you sign a contract and the phone is yours. There's a 14 (or 30) day period in which you can cancel the contract and return the phone, but otherwise it's yours and they won't take it back regardless (also previously pointed out by someone else).
So out here, you clearly own the hardware; The problem is, you don't own the software/firmware that is necessary to operate the device. Likewise, Apple provides no form of ways to make an alternative to their proprietary software that is required to run the device.
In other words, you either agree to their EULA or have a useless brick.
What Steve Jobs is trying to do is keep people from using Apple products in ways other than they were designed to be used by Apple. IMHO, that's kinda evil.
T-Mobile is odd in that they have a postpaid service option (Even More Plus -- still exists but it's hard to find!) that you can save about $10 or so monthly, and they DID have an option to pay the price of the unsubsidized phone in installments, a method I imagine Europeans do in some cases.
However, when you pay 199 to AT&T and get an iPhone in the US (that, or Verizon), you sign a contract and the phone is yours. There's a 14 (or 30) day period in which you can cancel the contract and return the phone, but otherwise it's yours and they won't take it back regardless (also previously pointed out by someone else).
So out here, you clearly own the hardware; The problem is, you don't own the software/firmware that is necessary to operate the device. Likewise, Apple provides no form of ways to make an alternative to their proprietary software that is required to run the device.
In other words, you either agree to their EULA or have a useless brick.
What Steve Jobs is trying to do is keep people from using Apple products in ways other than they were designed to be used by Apple. IMHO, that's kinda evil.
On that same train of though should installing applications w/o a central store happen on all PC transactions due to piracy?
The Application developers can put in safeguards. I've read about various apps that if someone grabs a copy and the user didn't purchase it they'll get some type of "you didn't buy it. buy it" type message and the app wont work.
In fact I had purchased an XBOX 360 app that lets you manage your friends list, etc, from iOS devices and recommended it and someone apparently tried to snag it and they mentioned that app does it.
Ultimately it's the app developers that need to put secondary safe guards into the apps. Sure if someone wants it they probably can get it somehow, but for most of the "hit and run" people that would deter them.
In my case I jailbreak my phone for extra functionality (complete themes, extra functionality applications, and most recently... VLC because I like to back up all my physical media to storage drives so I have "on demand" access to them... and it also prevents my 4yr old from damaging it and being unusable).
Do I think there needs to be better application protection for developers? 100%. They deserve to get paid for popular apps they create (with reasonable prices).
Do I think that you should ban jailbreaking? No, because you'd be touching on some pretty shaky ground on who, ultimately, is responsible for putting safeguards into play (hence PC games requiring authenticated CD keys, etc) which they can do. Also jailbreaking for so many users, I'd love to see real numbers on pure piracy vs functionality, is to get the most out of their devices. Sort of like Rooting on an Android phone. Getting it just the way you want it, and pushing it a bit to do it.
The Application developers can put in safeguards. I've read about various apps that if someone grabs a copy and the user didn't purchase it they'll get some type of "you didn't buy it. buy it" type message and the app wont work.
In fact I had purchased an XBOX 360 app that lets you manage your friends list, etc, from iOS devices and recommended it and someone apparently tried to snag it and they mentioned that app does it.
Ultimately it's the app developers that need to put secondary safe guards into the apps. Sure if someone wants it they probably can get it somehow, but for most of the "hit and run" people that would deter them.
In my case I jailbreak my phone for extra functionality (complete themes, extra functionality applications, and most recently... VLC because I like to back up all my physical media to storage drives so I have "on demand" access to them... and it also prevents my 4yr old from damaging it and being unusable).
Do I think there needs to be better application protection for developers? 100%. They deserve to get paid for popular apps they create (with reasonable prices).
Do I think that you should ban jailbreaking? No, because you'd be touching on some pretty shaky ground on who, ultimately, is responsible for putting safeguards into play (hence PC games requiring authenticated CD keys, etc) which they can do. Also jailbreaking for so many users, I'd love to see real numbers on pure piracy vs functionality, is to get the most out of their devices. Sort of like Rooting on an Android phone. Getting it just the way you want it, and pushing it a bit to do it.
I would love to see the numbers too, hoping that most users simply JB for the extra functionality. Then if Apple actually considered implementing these features (SBSettings please!) then maybe not so many would bother JBing their phones. But sadly I imagine the majority do it for the free apps.
That's silly. That's like saying if they stop making your favorite car, you'd ride a bike instead.
Wow, is that all people jailbreak for? (to steel apps?). I thought it was to get additional functionality and customization. I think there's a general mis-conception that people only jailbreak to steel apps. Not in my experience.
Last edited:
The fact that it doesn't create a copy isn't relevant. That's just one of Apple's exclusive rights granted by copyright law. Apple also has the exclusive right to create derivative works from iOS.
I never claimed it was anything but questionable legally. In fact, there are a number of cases where jailbreaking is likely legal under copyright law. I specifically pointed out that there are limitations to Apple's exclusive rights in copyright law. Apple's SLA adds contract issues to fuzzy things up even more.
WTF?
I keep seeing this postulated by people.
I don't know anyone who uses a jailbroken iPhone to get free apps. I don't even know how to get free apps except from using installous, which I'm afraid to put on my phone.
I imagine the majority do it for theming or to get things they can't from stock iOS (Hotspot, quick reply SMS, Infinite folders etc)
Are you kidding me? How can you support this? If the feds follow Apple, this could lead to a devastating domino effect.
First phones, then cars, then everything else.
In the end, the most logical solution is the best. If I buy it, I can do whatever the f* I want with it. If companies don't like that idea, don't sell it.
What you guys are trying to do is taking power from the people, and putting it in companies. In which case, I say F* you. Companies already have too much power in today's government.
Pretty soon, you won't even be able to swap the batteries in your remote control because it violates the EULA (extreme, but possible).
First phones, then cars, then everything else.
In the end, the most logical solution is the best. If I buy it, I can do whatever the f* I want with it. If companies don't like that idea, don't sell it.
What you guys are trying to do is taking power from the people, and putting it in companies. In which case, I say F* you. Companies already have too much power in today's government.
Pretty soon, you won't even be able to swap the batteries in your remote control because it violates the EULA (extreme, but possible).
This whole thread is based off a badly sourced, almost word-for-word copy of a badly written and badly sourced article on an obscure website - http://www.thegrio.com/news/college-student-makes-jailbreaking-a-business.php
A year ago, Apple tried to get the Copyright office to not declare an exception to the DMCA to allow for jailbreaking (not declare it illegal - it was already not allowed by default under the DMCA).
In July the Copyright Office allowed jailbreaking as an exception to the DMCA. The new rules stand for the next three years until the next round of Copyright exceptions.
That's it. End of story. Nothing to see here, move along.
I see your analogy but I am having trouble seeing your connection:
I am buying a phone (which becomes mines) at a discounted price which you offer me to agree to enter a contract with you. This is different from you telling me to take care of your cat (iphone). I did not buy the cat so its still yours, and I am agreeing to take care of it. When i buy the phone it is mines, I am the owner.
Yes, but the actual law is all that matters in terms of keeping the handset and who is the legal owner as far as modifying it.
That was the issue, but the big problem for T-Mobile was that as these people's handsets were a gift subject to contract, if they made a material contractual break then all those customers wouldn't have to pay anything further and could keep the handsets, even if they were only a month into a two year contract. This would be because, exactly as I've explained, the handset is the property of the user, not the network. T-Mobile wouldn't be able to recoup the costs of those handsets as they would lose the minimum contract term and hence would lose very significant sums of money.
That's why they changed their mind and didn't apply the limit to existing contracts. See how this demonstrates my point?
Phazer
Last edited:
I give Steve Jobs a big FU!! I don't care how sick he is, if this passes it will set precedent. This is pure evil and it's all Apple's and SJ's fault.
FU Steve Jobs!!! *thebirdie*
Another reason why apple sucks
http://www.redmondpie.com/apple-ask...r&utm_campaign=Feed:+RedmondPie+(Redmond+Pie)
It's my phone and i should be able to do whatever i want to do with it, FU Steve Jobs
Whats really dumb is quite a number get iPhone to use on T-mobile in US.
which means more sales.
It's hard to tell if this is for a business reason or if this is Steve Jobs' highly possessive ego. Let's face it, Apple occasionally does things that in a financial sense, make no sense whatsoever, and it seems that the only reason for the decision is the 'principle' of it.
... how many people are getting worked up about a fight that's already been won!
Jailbreaking is allowed under an exception to the DMCA. Apple is no longer trying to prevent it being allowed.
The OP's insane rant is based on a flimsy, badly written report copied third hand from a flimsy, badly written report.
You couldn't be more wrong. I can and have canceled a contract and have not paid one extra cent for my cancelation fee after having purchased a subsidized phone. You should look up what subsidize means.
Anyways, It's stupid of apple to even try that, it's like buying a car from toyota and they say, "you're not allowed to change the rims"
it's not gonna get anywhere, but like a homeless person on the street begging for change, it doesn't hurt to ask right?
To say they are "reclaiming their property" is improper -- it's a remedy for a breach of contract. They have no ownership in the property, nor do they have a security interest in the phone (and if they did, good luck enforcing it).
As for the article posted by the OP - this is old news. The Copyright Office and Library of Congress already made their decisions in support of jailbreaking for the purposes of interoperability.
First, it is certainly the case in the UK that you purchase an iPhone when you take out a contract. If you fail to keep to the terms of the contract, the companies come after you for the revenue they lost, but that doesn't make the iPhone theirs.
Second, I cannot imagine how the copyright to the bootloader could be used to argue against jailbreaking, since the bootloader is not being copied but rather overwritten. Imagine if Apple wins this - then one could argue that any copyrighted software you put on your computer/phone/tablet etc. could never be removed (namely, rewritten with 0's) or overwritten.... It just doesn't make sense to me. This intellectual property cr*p has got to stop. I wonder why some company hasn't dawned on the idea of generating random code endlessly, copyrighting it, and then waiting for 'infringements' (just liked the companies that patented genes)....
Bad
.
Second, I cannot imagine how the copyright to the bootloader could be used to argue against jailbreaking, since the bootloader is not being copied but rather overwritten. Imagine if Apple wins this - then one could argue that any copyrighted software you put on your computer/phone/tablet etc. could never be removed (namely, rewritten with 0's) or overwritten.... It just doesn't make sense to me. This intellectual property cr*p has got to stop. I wonder why some company hasn't dawned on the idea of generating random code endlessly, copyrighting it, and then waiting for 'infringements' (just liked the companies that patented genes)....
Bad
.