Comex weighs in on iBooks Jailbreak Issue

Discussion in 'Jailbreaks and iOS Hacks' started by ignus graius, Feb 14, 2011.

  1. ignus graius macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    #1
    via http://twitter.com/#!/comex/status/37307961328152576
    Hopefully this means a fix is coming soon for people who've purchased books from the iBookstore and wish to remain jailbroken.
     
  2. Benji222 macrumors 65816

    Benji222

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Location:
    So Cal
    #2
    Wow apple does some interesting stuff.
    Why the hell does it matter if your opening a DRM protected book on a JB device?
     
  3. WhatAmI macrumors 6502a

    WhatAmI

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    #3
    I'm actually kinda surprised they didn't use this approach to also validate music and apps... good find by Comex and Pushfix
     
  4. TJone macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    #4
    It's funny they are just pushing people to use 3rd party apps like Kindle and losing potential revenue. I guess their revenue stream is so high they are not overly concerned.
     
  5. MikePA macrumors 68020

    MikePA

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    #5
    It's interesting that some people have the knee jerk reaction of thinking Apple would waste programmers time to implement something like this just for the heck of it or to annoy people or because they want to push people to Kindle because their revenue is so high. I guess that kind of talk goes over well during lunch period.

    Apple is a business. It matters because Apple thinks, or more likely the actual owner of the content thinks, people will be able to 'steal' the protected content on a jb device and Apple has to show they are doing something to prevent it. As someone else mentioned, a similar approach will probably be implemented with music and video and Amazon will probably implement something similar.

    Both Apple and Amazon are distributing someone elses copyrighted content and they both have to show they are taking reasonable steps to protect it from being stolen.
     
  6. TJone macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    #6
    Nobody implied Apple programmers implemented code just for the heck of it, to annoy people or because they wanted to push people to Kindle because their revenue is so high. Cause and effect are very different and the point is that the end result of implementing a policy like this can result in more people using 3rd party apps like Kindle, irregardless of the intention.
     
  7. MikePA macrumors 68020

    MikePA

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    #7
    Almost every time Apple does anything construed as anti-jb, people see it as a personal attack and a continuation of a 'cat and mouse' game that has no basis in business reasons.

    I must have misunderstood the following.

     
  8. WiiDSmoker macrumors 65816

    WiiDSmoker

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Location:
    Hermitage, TN
    #8
    But you are opening a DRM'd book; which means you legally paid for it. If it was stealing, the book wouldn't be DRM'd.
     
  9. MikePA macrumors 68020

    MikePA

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    #9
    Huh? Did you read what you wrote? Just because you bought the book doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with the content. That's what the content providers care about.
     
  10. TJone macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    #10
    I was speaking to the effect of creating this new policy in iBooks and that it will inevitably lead to more people using Kindle and other 3rd party apps. I never suggested Apple is implementing this new policy because their revenue is high and never suggested anything about their intentions. I simply suggested they may not be overly concerned because they have a significant revenue stream.
     
  11. jpetticrew macrumors 6502a

    jpetticrew

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Location:
    Texas
    #11
    Irregardless is not a word.
     
  12. shakeman0 macrumors 6502a

    shakeman0

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2009
    #12
    Interesting. I didn't realize it would be that easy to detect a jailbreak, but their method makes perfect since. Hopefully Apple won't use this to place more restrictions on jailbreakers.
     
  13. dudeabiding macrumors 6502

    dudeabiding

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    #13
    Hmmmm

    Yep- the few books I bought on the Apple site (very few, pickings are sparse there) no longer open- I'm told to do a restore of my device. :) I don't think so.

    Everything else I have on there that is not purchased from Apple (public domain) works fine. Since I use Kindle much more (MANY more books available to purchase for that device), it seems to me the Apple (for good or bad reasons) is only harming the future growth of their bookstore/device. Too bad, as the "readability" of material on iBooks is nicer than using the Kindle app.

    As to the argument above re Apple's role in "protecting" the rights of the copyright holders, I don't see the logic of the argument. I purchased the content, how I access it should not be an issue unless I attempt/succeed in illegally distributing it. (And, as a teacher, I have the right to do all kinds of things to/with content for use in my classroom.) The platform I use should not be an issue in and of itself. The Library of Congress has held that jailbreaking your phone or other device is legal. Oh, wait, the LOC is in charge of printed matter in the US, correct? I don't think this is cat and mouse, I think this is an outright attempt by Apple to mess with the rights of legal jailbreakers to use their purchased content on their legal devices. This is just as illegal under current law as DVD manufacturing houses preventing us from making ONE backup of our media. Just because they can does not mean they should, or that it is legal. I would expect that it would be hard for Apple to prove in court that the mere fact that a device is legally jailbroken negates the user's right to access previously purchased material. Let alone someone not knowing about this and going out today and buying three books for use on their iPad and then discovering they will not work. It will be interesting to see this play out in court.

    BTW, ALL the material on my devices is purchased, I run no cracked apps or otherwise flout the law. Does Apple assume that, by jailbreaking my device I am automatically not to be trusted?
     
  14. rwilliams macrumors 68040

    rwilliams

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Location:
    Durham, NC
    #14
    I'm not following. If I buy a book from iBooks, why should Apple care if my device is jailbroken as long as the DRM on that particular book has not been circumvented? If Apple is going to take this approach, then they need to implement code in the iBooks STORE that prevents you from buying the book in the first place if you're jailbroken. Otherwise, it's pretty bad form to sell you the product and then prevent you from actually using it.

    If the inferior quality of their store hasn't pushed enough people to the Kindle app, this will.
     
  15. MikePA macrumors 68020

    MikePA

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    #15
    This has nothing to do with how you access it, the Library of Congress, or anything else you mentioned.

    Put yourself in the position of the the owner of the content for just a second. You have entered into a contract with Apple to sell your copyrighted content. You want assurances from Apple they will protect your content from being illegally distributed. The content owner knows Apple has iBooks locked down on a stock iPhone but they are not sure about jb devices. So they ask Apple, "Clearly you are aware there are jb devices out there. What are you doing to fulfill our contract and protect our content on jb devices?" What's Apple supposed to say, "Nothing."?
     
  16. MikePA macrumors 68020

    MikePA

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    #16
    Simple. They do not know if DRM content can be circumvented on a jb device but they know it can't be on a stock device.

    And how are they supposed to address DRM protected books that have already been purchased?
     
  17. madmaxmedia macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #17
    You could conceivably lock down an entire phone this way, good thing they don't!
     
  18. ulbador macrumors 68000

    ulbador

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #18
    They already try to. Jailbreaking just circumvents this. It's not really that huge of an issue now that they know about it. Comex already has a fix. Hell, even a normal developer can detect a jailbroken phone. They way I've heard about doing it before is to just try writing a file outside of the app's "sandbox". If you can, the phone is jailbroken and the app can refuse to run.
     
  19. madmaxmedia macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #19
    LOL, I didn't know that-
     
  20. WhatAmI macrumors 6502a

    WhatAmI

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    #20
  21. KentuckyHouse macrumors 68020

    KentuckyHouse

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Location:
    Lexington, KY.
    #21
    You're ALMOST right. Actually, it's a "nonstandard" word.

    From Merriam-Webster's website:

    "Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."

    From Dictionary.com's website:

    "Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. "

    "an erroneous word that, etymologically, means the exact opposite of what it is used to express, attested in non-standard writing from at least 1870s (e.g. "Portsmouth Times," Portsmouth, Ohio, U.S.A., April 11, 1874: "We supported the six successful candidates for Council in the face of a strong opposition. We were led to do so because we believed every man of them would do his whole duty, irregardless of party, and the columns of this paper for one year has [sic] told what is needed."); probably a blend of irrespective and regardless . Perhaps inspired by the double negative used as an emphatic."

    So, it IS a word...just one that's not a standard (or smart-sounding) word. :D
     
  22. MikePA macrumors 68020

    MikePA

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    #22
    Do you have a link to where the fix can be downloaded?
     
  23. WhatAmI macrumors 6502a

    WhatAmI

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    #23
    Not yet, as this shouldn't require a re-JB I expect a Cydia package fairly soon.
     
  24. ignus graius thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    #24
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

    https://twitter.com/iphone_dev/status/37623051227111424
    Looks like PwnageTool has been updated with a fix.
     
  25. WhatAmI macrumors 6502a

    WhatAmI

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    #25
    And packages are on their way to Cydia - sweeeeet:)
     

Share This Page