And what about those who are using ATT with an unlocked phone but not the iphone plan??? Like me... ;-) Am I going to be arrested?
No, of course not. You've not done anything against the law if we're to assume that you didn't make any binding agreement not to and the unlocking process doesn't require you to misappropriate any proprietary and restricted information.
Who knows...does anyone out there have the facts?
Sure. The exemption to the anti-circumvention law is as follows:
"5. Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network."
Source: United States Copyright Office.
This does not invalidate other claims against the locking process, per se, so people that
make the unlocking software can still be liable for damages and even criminal penalties, depending on how they go about creating the unlocking tool.
Also note that this exception to the copyright rule does
not require that the handset maker or network operator actually
help you unlock the device. It does not require that they keep any exploits or vulnerabilities open. It simply requires that they not sue you for copyright infringement and that if you are "lawfully connected" to your network, that they not arbitrarily
lock the phone (by expressly changing the SIM lock code--since none of the iPhone activation techniques thus far use a "lock code" technique [if they did, you would not need to flash your firmware], this is not applicable here).
The rule also does not mean that carriers can't put language into their contracts about refusing to support phones with modified firmware or that they can't lock out phones using said unauthorized firmware. For instance, the "sole purpose" of most activation hacks is not just a SIM unlock--it's a modification allowing third-party development, so that use is not protected by the exception--only the unlocking is. If you have violated copyright with some other hack, you're still certainly liable. But Apple isn't going to find out or do anything about it to you personally. They're just going to release firmware that breaks what you've done.
So again, they can't simply
lock the phones by broadcast, but they don't have to support your efforts, and they don't have to support modified-firmware devices, and they don't have to keep the back doors open.
If Apple made an active effort (secure, pre-installed & active EFI-based tech for example) to somehow prevent Mac users from running other OSes or virtual machines on Macs, would people be happy with that?
That's not a parallel situation--adding your own software is very different from
modifying theirs. There is no prohibition on installing your own software on the iPhone. You can wipe the memory and install Linux if you want to. Unfortunately it would no longer function as a cell phone at that point, since the baseband firmware is proprietary and includes the necessary security measures and connectivity to a particular cellular network.
Your problem here is not with Apple, but with AT&T. Cellular networks are not "open access" technologies--they're not the Internet. They are closed, proprietary services to which admission is granted by those who own them. You have no issues whatsoever doing anything you want to your iPhone until you try to connect it to a private network without authorization.
It's your phone, and you can do mostly whatever you want with that phone. But it's AT&T's network and Apple's code, and they can do mostly whatever
they want.
If iPods could only EVER be filled with DRMed music from the iTunes store, would people be buying them to the tune of 100 million units?
That's neither relevant nor illegal. They would be less successful, but that's entirely a business decision to be made by the company.
If, for example Mercedes Benz or Toyota found a way of restricting it's cars to a special fuelling nozzle only found at filling stations run by BP, Esso, Texaco or Shell for example, would it sell as many as it does now?
Again, it's not "how successful they would be in the marketplace." That point is moot. The iPhone is quite successful.
Would any of these actions be considered legal
All of them would be legal (not excepting any strange local statutes).
