iBooks 1.2.1 Detects Some Jailbreaks, Disables iBookstore Purchases in Response

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Go for it. Put your money where your mouth is. Sue them bastards!

If I owned one, I probably would.

In reality, Apple isn't denying anyone anything.

As suggested in the screenshot, restoring your iOS installation to an authorized state will re-enable access to the iBooks app.

So, by forcing you to not do something the government has decreed perfectly legal and valid (and done for a good reason) by not allowing you to read your own valid purchased books (something completely and totally unrelated to the jail-breaking itself and only there so Apple can be vindictive and in control and force you to buy from their monopoly store-front), you call that not denying anyone anything? What are you smoking and where can I get some?

LOL. You make me laugh most of the times you reply to me. I'll give you that much.

edit to add: I don't care that Apple did this because I chose to jailbreak. It is my responsibility. All this whining reminds me of the @$$holes who break into someone's home to commit a crime, get hurt, and then SUE the homeowner.

The problem is that you are making a comparison to something illegal (breaking and entering) to something LEGAL (jail-breaking a phone) and then to my pure amusement break the forum's word-filtering rule to boot while doing it! LOL.

There's a really simple solution to all this, though. Don't buy DRM material from iTunes. I refused to buy music from iTunes when they had DRM and this just pushes me to a more universal solution like Kindle (which has DRM, but at least it won't stop working because Amazon doesn't like me avoiding their store to buy something from someone else (which is what Apple's measures are ALL about. They want to monopolize all the software for the iPhone and other iOS devices so they get their 30% revenue cut on EVERYTHING, not just apps, not just books, not just games. EVERYTHING. And people wonder why I don't like Apple as a company. They refuse to just compete on merit. They always want to rig the game and the market place so you have no other choices. I cannot respect that. You get more flies with honey than vinegar.

Apple is the Microsoft of the 2010's.

Users don't like to be bullied, pushed and generally made fools of. Apple, like Microsoft, is doing this. Its just a matter of time....

They weren't much different before 2010. The only difference is now they are as big as Microsoft (and getting bigger) and so while they used to just pick on their small market share (Apple Tax their own user base to death to stay alive like some kind of wraith) now they can really start to shove their weight around with their huge chunk of the smart-phone and tablet markets.

Apple may have been more creative than Microsoft, but they were just another bully sitting in Microsoft's shadow waiting the day they could bully someone around too. As much as I loved my Commodore Amiga computers, Commodore was no different. The CEO and top brass were all greedy dirt bags. The only difference is they were ultimately incompetent dirt bags and so their company went under where Apple barely managed to survive and Microsoft thrived. Now Apple is thriving and they're greed is just being put under the spotlight. More creativity doesn't make you less greedy, after all.

Let's face it. MOST companies are like this. And they put out a LOT of money in the form of lobbying to keep it that way. Our modern society is based on GREED and that's what greed does. It eats you for breakfast and craps you out so it can eat you again.

 

[BaldiMac]

If I owned one, I probably would.

If you had confidence in your convictions, it would be a great investment!

So, by forcing you to not do something the government has decreed perfectly legal and valid (and done for a good reason)

Let's stop right there. The government has not decreed jailbreaking to be perfectly legal and valid. The have simply approved an exemption to the DMCA for a specific purpose. The DMCA is not the only applicable law in the land.

by not allowing you to read your own valid purchased books (something completely and totally unrelated to the jail-breaking itself and only there so Apple can be vindictive and in control and force you to buy from their monopoly store-front), you call that not denying anyone anything?

You are allowed to read you own valid purchased books. The popup explains exactly how to do that.

 

[QuarterSwede]

or if you dont want to jailbreak again here is a .deb that fixes the issue -

http://a.qoid.us/hunnypot.deb

google how to install debs if you don't know how, i don't have time


tested-working


edit- its now live on cydia (hunnypot)

I just did this as well and it worked beautifully. All at only 4kb.

Have iFile installed and Navigate to the deb in Mobile Safari. Tap on the link, tap Open in iFile, then Install once in iFile. You'll get a result of "0" (zero) which means it worked. Respring and enjoy reading your iBooks DRM'd books once again.

There's also a repo. You can read more at the iPhone Download Blog

 

[Mal]

You get more flies with honey than vinegar.

Sorry, gonna have to call you out on that one.

All right, now, carry on.

jW

 

[faroZ06]

Today iBooks..

Next week:
App Store
iTunes
3rd Party Apps

YAYYYYY.... -.-

Can't they just hack the thing that prevents hacking? They will

 

[faroZ06]

Awesome - lol

I can't stand iDevices but I truly respect jail break community - awesome job guys and keep it up!

Fanboy...
How could you like Flash? "Yay, laggy flash ads on my Droid "
"Dang, that Flash game won't work because it doesn't see keyboard input..."
"But Flash is the bomb! It lags a lot...I guess since it's so good and rich..."


Anyway, the JBers will just hack the thing that prevents iBook usage. Apple can't get around it forever.

 

[Bubba Satori]

There is nothing wrong with your tv.
We are in control...

 

[suss2it]

I don't understand the motive in doing this. Since this is aimed solely at jailbreakers, wouldn't we just figure away around it? Or better yet wouldn't we just switch to Kindle?

 

[cmaier]

I don't understand the motive in doing this. Since this is aimed solely at jailbreakers, wouldn't we just figure away around it? Or better yet wouldn't we just switch to Kindle?

It's a minor technical and major legal impediment to illegal copying of iBook content.

 

[suss2it]

It's a minor technical and major legal impediment to illegal copying of iBook content.

How come Kindle doesn't do something similar? I just understand why Apple would do this, it seems like it drive away sales. Especially since they already have a smaller selection of books.

 

[cmaier]

How come Kindle doesn't do something similar? I just understand why Apple would do this, it seems like it drive away sales. Especially since they already have a smaller selection of books.

How exactly does it drive away sales? Almost no one actually jailbreaks (hanging around here you get a false sense that this is common).

Further, Kindle does do something similar [lock down hardware with DRM, signed code, etc.] - on its Kindle hardware. Kindle would do the same thing on iPhone if it could, but this Apple trick can't be done by third party developers.

 

[michaelcyee]

It's a minor technical and major legal impediment to illegal copying of iBook content.

This is incorrect. As I said earlier, public domain books and books not bought through the iBokstore are unaffected. The only person it affects is if the jailbreaker bought the book, since he or she cannot open it anymore due to this hack.

 

[cmaier]

This is incorrect. As I said earlier, public domain books and books not bought through the iBokstore are unaffected. The only person it affects is if the jailbreaker bought the book, since he or she cannot open it anymore due to this hack.

No, it's correct. The reason they did this is to prevent hackers from jailbreaking so as to be able to hack the iBooks app to be able to capture the unencrypted ebooks, so they can then distribute them.

It only affects books bought through the iBookstore because those are the only books Apple cares about enforcing the copyright on..

 

[michaelcyee]

No, it's correct. The reason they did this is to prevent hackers from jailbreaking so as to be able to hack the iBooks app to be able to capture the unencrypted ebooks, so they can then distribute them.

It only affects books bought through the iBookstore because those are the only books Apple cares about enforcing the copyright on..

Eh. Doesn't make sense to me. AFAIK, I don't know of any hackers who've stripped the protection from the bookstore in a widespread enough manner to cause concern to Apple. Plus, hackers have already made a workaround to this problem, so it didn't really slow them down...if they're going to hack the books.

 

[cmaier]

Eh. Doesn't make sense to me. AFAIK, I don't know of any hackers who've stripped the protection from the bookstore in a widespread enough manner to cause concern to Apple. Plus, hackers have already made a workaround to this problem, so it didn't really slow them down...if they're going to hack the books.

1) it doesn't matter that YOU don't know of any hackers
2) it doesn't matter that there is a workaround. I said it's a "slight technical" impediment. Obviously Apple will continue the arms race.
3) it doesn't matter that it didn't slow them down. I said it's a slight legal impediment. Anyone who uses the new hack and then copies and distributes a book is clearly not within any DMCA exception, as the activity of distributing the book is not fair use. The DMCA is a far more potent weapon than the copyright law. Without this action, DMCA might not be useable in this situation.

 

[feefer]

And this is exactly why I switched to Android this week. I simply can't support a company who does things like this.

You're fooling yourself if you think ANY company, much less Google OR Apple OR Amazon, is going to set themselves up for charges of contributory copyright infringement. Because that's what this is all about.

Apple HAS to patch broken DRM caused (whether intentionally or not) by Greenpoison's hack, as they'd end up in civil court explaining to a judge why they failed to patch their broken DRM (even if due to another party's hack) that contributed to DMCA violations. No company "wins" by squandering their war-chest defending accusations from other well-financed entities (such as content providers) in court, and if not from such a pragmatic standpoint of choosing battles wisely, most firms have enough respect for law NOT to put themselves in that untenable position.

Oddly enough, content providers/creators get REALLY PISSED if DRM cannot be maintained: if fact, terms that stipulate the obligation to support DRM are often included in contracts content providers sign with content DISTRIBUTORS (e.g. Apple) to allow their merchandise to be distributed on say, iTunes. Think about it: if you manufactured a physical widget, would you deal with a distributor who didn't lock their store doors at night, or who allowed customers to walk away with product for free? Of course not.

Google knows this well: in fact, the main reason the Netflix CEO offered for NOT having an Android app was the challenge of developing DRM across the many flavors of Android; Netflix knows their content provider partners would yank content in a heartbeat from their ENTIRE operation if their Android app couldn't protect their product. The bottom line is no CEO is going to risk pissing off the content providers, violating their distribution contract, etc, thus torpedoing their business, by making a sloppy, stupid mistake like this.

In fact, Google found significant resistance from content providers when seeking permission to allow content to flow via Google TV, because those same content owners were still pissed about perceived YouTube violations (even though many offenses occurred before YouTube was bought by Google). Hence why the Google TV multi-million dollar endeavor appears to be dying on the vine...

Only a fool would think Apple or Google aren't worried about their perception of playing a significant role in allowing infringement of their users to go unchecked, whether iOS or Android.

PS the statement by the Copyright Office didn't declare jail-breaking to be LEGAL, they just said they didn't consider it to be under the domain of DMCA; so their opinion that it is NOT illegal, either, under DMCA provisions. As pointed out, that doesn't pertain to needing to comply with USC that covers copyright law. The Copyright Office cannot issue declarations of legality on it's own: it's not the US Supreme Court.

However, users should check out the EULA (a legally-binding agreement) they agreed to when they purchased their iOS device: it stipulates what YOU agreed to. It forbids jailbreaking/violating other's copyrights (as well as Apple's right to check for your violations), but no one wants to remember THAT.

Instead of Apple bashing, they deserve credit for walking a thin tight-rope, not taking the Sony route (suing hackers) but trying to balance user's desires vs content providers rights. Remember: Jobs and Woz had roots as hackers (something they've tried to downplay), and are going to be sympathetic to those desires.

 

[Daveoc64]

1) it doesn't matter that YOU don't know of any hackers
2) it doesn't matter that there is a workaround. I said it's a "slight technical" impediment. Obviously Apple will continue the arms race.
3) it doesn't matter that it didn't slow them down. I said it's a slight legal impediment. Anyone who uses the new hack and then copies and distributes a book is clearly not within any DMCA exception, as the activity of distributing the book is not fair use. The DMCA is a far more potent weapon than the copyright law. Without this action, DMCA might not be useable in this situation.

This is simply nonsense.

You don't need to jailbreak the device to access the book files. iTunes syncs them to your computer automatically.

It makes no sense to try and hack the books using an iOS device. It would be too slow and fiddly to do so.

It's much easier to hack the content on a computer.

The only real benefit of hacking an iBook would be to remove the DRM from the EPUB file and to then use that EPUB file on other (non-iOS devices). Jailbreaking wouldn't help that at all.

Apple's check mechanism would also ignore a book that had been cracked in this way.

 

[BaldiMac]

This is simply nonsense.

You don't need to jailbreak the device to access the book files. iTunes syncs them to your computer automatically.

It makes no sense to try and hack the books using an iOS device. It would be too slow and fiddly to do so.

It's much easier to hack the content on a computer.

The only real benefit of hacking an iBook would be to remove the DRM from the EPUB file and to then use that EPUB file on other (non-iOS devices). Jailbreaking wouldn't help that at all.

Apple's check mechanism would also ignore a book that had been cracked in this way.

That's not the point. The technical measures are not really important other than that they are there and that they are effective when they haven't been broken. As cmaier has pointed out, it's the existence of the technical measures that adds DMCA protection for Apple.

 

[feefer]

And what's with the stock weather icon?? I know that here in Halifax it's NOT always 23 degrees and Sunny! WHy isn't the icon dynamic like the calendar? It sucks having to actually go into the app just to see current conditions.

HINT: you can always just look outside the window, too. The real world offers much greater resolution than even the retina display of an iPhone 4.

 

[Acorn]

i didnt read the whole thread its massively long but i assume that they did this so people dont for instance zip up 300 computer ibooks to download for free for jail broken devices. it protects ibook authors who publish to their store.

on one hand its admirable they are protecting the book authors but on the other hand its pretty crappy for those who legally purchased the books. once you buy it the item should be yours. you should be able to display it however you like. i know not everyone who jailbreaks is stealing. many do it for just for interface options. so this kinda sucks

 

[Daveoc64]

That's not the point. The technical measures are not really important other than that they are there and that they are effective when they haven't been broken. As cmaier has pointed out, it's the existence of the technical measures that adds DMCA protection for Apple.

Maybe so, but why would you want to break down the front door when the window is wide open?

 

[BaldiMac]

Maybe so, but why would you want to break down the front door when the window is wide open?

Is that a trick question? I wouldn't want to break down the front door or go in the window. Maybe you mixed up your metaphor there.

 

[cmaier]

This is simply nonsense.

You don't need to jailbreak the device to access the book files. iTunes syncs them to your computer automatically.

It makes no sense to try and hack the books using an iOS device. It would be too slow and fiddly to do so.

It's much easier to hack the content on a computer.

The only real benefit of hacking an iBook would be to remove the DRM from the EPUB file and to then use that EPUB file on other (non-iOS devices). Jailbreaking wouldn't help that at all.

Apple's check mechanism would also ignore a book that had been cracked in this way.

It's actually much easier to hack the books on the actual iOS device, because you don't have to crack the key - the iBooks.app does it for you, and the unencrypted book is then available in RAM.

 

[Daveoc64]

Is that a trick question? I wouldn't want to break down the front door or go in the window. Maybe you mixed up your metaphor there.

I'm talking about someone trying to crack the DRM.

 

[BaldiMac]

I'm talking about someone trying to crack the DRM.

But that, again, misses the point. The DRM can be cracked. Whether it's easy or hard isn't the issue. Apple has to maintain the technical protections in order to have the DMCA available should they get into another situation similar to Psystar. If someone should try to commercialize iBook cracking, an Apple lawsuit would be stronger with the backing of the DMCA.