iBooks 1.2.1 Detects Some Jailbreaks, Disables iBookstore Purchases in Response

[feefer]

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

BTW, the title of this thread is misleading: iBooks 1.2.1 didn't actually look for and "detect the presence of jailbreaks", it tested for broken DRM by throwing out an invalid code and seeing if it was allowed. If the OS didn't throw out a red flag (as it SHOULD), iBooks 1.2.1 refused to run. So Apple modified to app to conduct a DRM check, and not a "jailbreak" test.

As stated, don't do the crime if you don't have the know-how (or time) to find a work-around. This is a non-issue for anyone who didn't jail-break, so is easily avoided by not doing so. (Interesting that DRM was broken by a hack at the OS level, whereas the patch from Apple was at the level of a modification to an app.)

Apple actually has suffered real harm from jailbreaking, in that they're apparently losing SOME business from those who improperly believe that the U.S. Constitution has now been amended to include their "right to jailbreak", and hence are calling for boycotts, etc.

However, I dare say those who are already inclined to hate on Apple and/or violate copyright law will only add this example to their stack of justifications of why they do what they do. And no amount of evidence or proof will suffice to get some people to believe anything that conflicts with what they WANT to believe; it's like talking religion with a fanatic....

 

[feefer]

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.

True, but no one said that was the goal of DRM is to block ALL methods that a hacker might use to violate copyright, or that it even COULD block ALL methods. I suppose someone could use a iPhone to snap a picture of a page on the iPad's computer screen, save images as pdfs, and put together a document showing the text, too. There's 1000's of ways to do it, I'm sure.

It should be obvious that DRM has limits, just like many locks are pickable: some are flimsy $1 jobbers that will open if you sneeze on them, and others are able to withstand a gun-shot. Fact is, even the most expensive locks won't be able to withstand a challenge from the proper tools (e.g. acetylene torch), but that doesn't mean they're useless....

Like locks, DRM is basically trying to keep honest people honest: reality is there's nothing you can do about someone intent on breaking the law anyway.

 

[michaelcyee]

Like locks, DRM is basically trying to keep honest people honest: reality is there's nothing you can do about someone intent on breaking the law anyway.

There's plenty of examples where the consumer has been screwed because he/she was honest. Activation servers being closed down, for instance, denying people the ability to activate their software/music/etc.

 

[cmaier]

There's plenty of examples where the consumer has been screwed because he/she was honest. Activation servers being closed down, for instance, denying people the ability to activate their software/music/etc.

Absolutely. DRM is despicable (primarily because the gov't has given it the force of law, and criminalized fair use). But, in this particular case, there's not much to see. People who use their devices in ways neither intended nor supported (and, in fact, explicitly forbidden) by the manufacturer experienced a hiccup in using a service provided by the manufacturer on the device.

The real issue is that given that ebooks are crippled by DRM (preventing first sale, fair use, etc.) they should cost much less than physical books, but they don't.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

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

I'd rather save the $70 a month (well rather $62 after my own pre-pay cell plan) and buy a new MBP every 2-3 years with the savings.

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.

You always miss the point. Has Apple decreed an exemption to their little iBook breaker for those that are doing it for a specific purpose? No, I thought not.

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

And if I have a valid reason that I need to have a jail-broken iPhone? What then? Too bad, right? Am I supposed to restore it, read my book and then break it again afterward or what?

Honestly, I don't think you'd admit you were wrong if your life depended on it. You do make all my posts look good, I'll give you that much.

Absolutely. DRM is despicable (primarily because the gov't has given it the force of law, and criminalized fair use). But, in this particular case, there's not much to see. People who use their devices in ways neither intended nor supported (and, in fact, explicitly forbidden) by the manufacturer experienced a hiccup in using a service provided by the manufacturer on the device.

The real issue is that given that ebooks are crippled by DRM (preventing first sale, fair use, etc.) they should cost much less than physical books, but they don't.

The problem is the DMCA itself breaks legal precedent for fair use. It tries to say that "digital" forms of data are somehow magically "different" than "analog" forms of data and therefore the precedent doesn't apply (ironically the brain processes actual information more like digital than analog). It's also purposely abstract and designed to be tested in court for the specifics. Those who have the money to do such a thing generally aren't the ones who would ever want to challenge it, since it protects their interests (i.e. greed greed greed + control).

It's a bad law and it should be repealed. But try and repeal something that is protected by endless corporate money through lobbyists and see how far you get. The whole problem with the entire U.S. Government is that it is almost completely and totally corrupt at this point by corporate interests. The very idea that a given official will vote for his constituents against the corporate powers that be is laughable outside perhaps a small local group. In other words, you'll never get a majority (let alone a super-majority to get through the Senate) because it conflicts with the interests of the Corporate powers that got most of those people their jobs (i.e. it generally takes a LOT of money to run for a major public office these days and most of us aren't rich and those that are tend to side with the corporations anyway). So you either vote rich or you serve rich. The common man has no place in government. It's a total sham. Something like the DMCA will never go away unless the Supreme Court ruled it down (Justices seem less influenced by lobbying since their jobs aren't dependent on being re-elected, but most come from one party or the other and so they still tend to support that type of thinking on certain issues).

 

[BaldiMac]

You always miss the point. Has Apple decreed an exemption to their little iBook breaker for those that are doing it for a specific purpose? No, I thought not.

I missed the point? You said that "the government has decreed [jailbreaking] perfectly legal and valid." I just corrected you. You were wrong.

Just because the government does not consider jailbreaking to install legally obtained third-party apps a violation of the DMCA does not mean that it is perfectly legal and valid. There are other laws that also speak to the legality of jailbreaking such as copyright and contract laws.

And if I have a valid reason that I need to have a jail-broken iPhone? What then? Too bad, right? Am I supposed to restore it, read my book and then break it again afterward or what?

Exactly. Too bad. Apple is under no obligation to support jailbroken devices, even if they are jailbroken legally.

Honestly, I don't think you'd admit you were wrong if your life depended on it. You do make all my posts look good, I'll give you that much.

Honestly, you don't know me and there is no need for you to make personal comments every time you respond to me. Please stick to the discussion.

The problem is the DMCA itself breaks legal precedent for fair use. It tries to say that "digital" forms of data are somehow magically "different" than "analog" forms of data and therefore the precedent doesn't apply (ironically the brain processes actual information more like digital than analog). It's also purposely abstract and designed to be tested in court for the specifics. Those who have the money to do such a thing generally aren't the ones who would ever want to challenge it, since it protects their interests (i.e. greed greed greed + control).

It's a bad law and it should be repealed. But try and repeal something that is protected by endless corporate money through lobbyists and see how far you get. The whole problem with the entire U.S. Government is that it is almost completely and totally corrupt at this point by corporate interests. The very idea that a given official will vote for his constituents against the corporate powers that be is laughable outside perhaps a small local group. In other words, you'll never get a majority (let alone a super-majority to get through the Senate) because it conflicts with the interests of the Corporate powers that got most of those people their jobs (i.e. it generally takes a LOT of money to run for a major public office these days and most of us aren't rich and those that are tend to side with the corporations anyway). So you either vote rich or you serve rich. The common man has no place in government. It's a total sham. Something like the DMCA will never go away unless the Supreme Court ruled it down (Justices seem less influenced by lobbying since their jobs aren't dependent on being re-elected, but most come from one party or the other and so they still tend to support that type of thinking on certain issues).

I agree with you almost completely (with the exception of the conspiracy theories of corruption.) Doesn't change the fact that it is currently the law.

 

[faroZ06]

Calm down!

Guys, cool it. I found something on Cydia from a French repository that enables iBooks for the iOS 4 jailbreak.

As I said, nothing to worry about. They got around it.

 

[faroZ06]

Absolutely. DRM is despicable (primarily because the gov't has given it the force of law, and criminalized fair use). But, in this particular case, there's not much to see. People who use their devices in ways neither intended nor supported (and, in fact, explicitly forbidden) by the manufacturer experienced a hiccup in using a service provided by the manufacturer on the device.

The real issue is that given that ebooks are crippled by DRM (preventing first sale, fair use, etc.) they should cost much less than physical books, but they don't.

Yeah, I never used the iTunes Store except for 4 horrible times when they had DRM. DRM always glitches for me. I hate it

And on our new Apple TV a while ago (before the iOS ATV), we bought a movie, but the DRM got messed up, so it thought that we didn't have the rights to it. We complained to Apple to get our $10 for the rental back.

After that, we never used the iTunes Store for buying anything other than apps. I would normally sometimes get songs from it using my gift cards, but due to an unfortunate chain of events starting with a strange computer glitch, I can't use the iTunes Store on my computer at all...

 

[faroZ06]

I missed the point? You said that "the government has decreed [jailbreaking] perfectly legal and valid." I just corrected you. You were wrong.

Just because the government does not consider jailbreaking to install legally obtained third-party apps a violation of the DMCA does not mean that it is perfectly legal and valid. There are other laws that also speak to the legality of jailbreaking such as copyright and contract laws.



Exactly. Too bad. Apple is under no obligation to support jailbroken devices, even if they are jailbroken legally.



Honestly, you don't know me and there is no need for you to make personal comments every time you respond to me. Please stick to the discussion.



I agree with you almost completely (with the exception of the conspiracy theories of corruption.) Doesn't change the fact that it is currently the law.

Copyright laws? I'll say that I disagree with you. Many people only jailbreak so they can install a bunch of hacks and other neat things like SSH. Of course, most use it just to pirate. Jailbreaking itself is legal.

Also, Apple intentionally is BLOCKING jailbreaking (or trying to). This is debatably illegal to do. Of course, if you see my earlier post, the hackers got around it

I, of course, do NOT blame . This jailbreaking is indirectly taking away much of their app store business. People are downloading Installous to pirate apps. Apple is just trying to stop this while upsetting a few people who they don't care about (pirates and a few legal JBers). Why would they care in the least bit about angering Installous users ?

 

[cmaier]

Copyright laws? I'll say that I disagree with you. Many people only jailbreak so they can install a bunch of hacks and other neat things like SSH. Of course, most use it just to pirate. Jailbreaking itself is legal

.

No. Jailbreaking now falls within an exception of the DMCA so it is not a violation of that law.

Jailbreaking is a violation of 17 USC 106(2) (the copyright law dealing with creation of derivative works). It may, however, be excepted from legal liability by 17 USC 107.

Also, Apple intentionally is BLOCKING jailbreaking (or trying to). This is debatably illegal to do.

No it's not. Not even debatably.

 

[faroZ06]

Also, Apple intentionally is BLOCKING jailbreaking (or trying to). This is debatably illegal to do.

No it's not. Not even debatably.

Yes, a company cannot prevent users from installing whatever software they want on the company's hardware. Ever heard of the MS lawsuit when they banned Netscape? Apple's banning the jailbreak software from their devices.

 

[faroZ06]

.

No. Jailbreaking now falls within an exception of the DMCA so it is not a violation of that law.

Jailbreaking is a violation of 17 USC 106(2) (the copyright law dealing with creation of derivative works). It may, however, be excepted from legal liability by 17 USC 107.

Do you even know what jailbreaking IS? They aren't copying Apple's stuff or anyone's. Jailbreaking is just modifying the software so that you can install apps that are not from the App Store.

Tell me where jailbreaking violates 17 US 107, and I'll agree. Until then...

 

[cmaier]

Yes, a company cannot prevent users from installing whatever software they want on the company's hardware. Ever heard of the MS lawsuit when they banned Netscape? Apple's banning the jailbreak software from their devices.

What are you talking about? That lawsuit has nothing to do with users modifying software.

Do you even know what jailbreaking IS? They aren't copying Apple's stuff or anyone's. Jailbreaking is just modifying the software so that you can install apps that are not from the App Store.

Tell me where jailbreaking violates 17 US 107, and I'll agree. Until then...

"just modifying the software" is called "creating a derivative work." 17 USC 106 makes it illegal for anyone other than the copyright holder to create a derivative work.

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
...
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

 

[faroZ06]

What are you talking about? That lawsuit has nothing to do with users modifying software.



"just modifying the software" is called "creating a derivative work." 17 USC 106 makes it illegal for anyone other than the copyright holder to create a derivative work.

They don't created derivative work. They only create a program that modifies the iOS.

So basically the only thing that you get when you download the jailbreak is stuff made by the jailbreakers ALONE, not Apple. It can be compared to other mods like plugins for Safari or even spark plugs for a car... The jailbreakers aren't stealing Apple software, modding it, and distributing it. THAT would be illegal, and you're suggesting that that's what they do.

Also, the MS lawsuit is about them preventing the installation of Netscape in Windows. Apple wants to prevent the installation of greenp0ison on iOS. Looks similar?

 

[cmaier]

They don't created derivative work. They only create a program that modifies the iOS.

That is the definition of a derivative work. The copyrighted iOS is replaced by a variation of the iOS that is derived from the copyrighted iOS.

So basically the only thing that you get when you download the jailbreak is stuff made by the jailbreakers ALONE, not Apple. It can be compared to other mods like plugins for Safari or even spark plugs for a car... The jailbreakers aren't stealing Apple software, modding it, and distributing it. THAT would be illegal, and you're suggesting that that's what they do.

Distributing is a DIFFERENT illegal act (17 USC 106(3)). But merely creating a derivative work, whether you distribute it or not, is forbidden by 17 USC 106(2).

Also, the MS lawsuit is about them preventing the installation of Netscape in Windows. Apple wants to prevent the installation of greenp0ison on iOS. Looks similar?

No, not at all similar. One is an antitrust issue, the other a copyright issue. MS didn't tell users they couldn't install netscape.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I missed the point? You said that "the government has decreed [jailbreaking] perfectly legal and valid." I just corrected you. You were wrong.

Apparently you take exception to the words "legal" and "valid". You apparently think that the exception granted to jailbreak phones in order to install legally obtained software is NOT legal or valid? This is clearly not true on the planet Earth in the United States of America as per:

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.

Now perhaps you live in another country or on another planet where it is not legal or valid to jailbreak a phone in order to install legally obtained software, but I'm speaking about Earth and the USA here.

Just because the government does not consider jailbreaking to install legally obtained third-party apps a violation of the DMCA does not mean that it is perfectly legal and valid.

LOL. Just because the government says it's legal, that doesn't mean it really is legal!

Don't let logic keep you from ranting onward, though. Keep telling us how it's not legal even though it is. I'm sure I'll now get the usual 20 page lecture on how wrong I am. I'm sure you'll have fun for the next hour or two.

Exactly. Too bad. Apple is under no obligation to support jailbroken devices, even if they are jailbroken legally.

Apple is purposely purposely interfering with your right to view legally obtained books, which you have every right to view in order to obtain an unrelated goal of getting you to stop using software from "stores" or "users" whereby Apple does not receive 30% of the revenue for the sale or cannot control what appears on your screen (you might view pRoN after all on a sacred Apple device!). Given you have every right to jailbreak your phone in order to run such software (that they don't want you to run), they are purposely and maliciously trying to prevent you from doing something you are now legally entitled to do and using an unrelated store-bought item (tying of a sort again) to do it.

It would be like Microsoft disabling your copy of Microsoft Office until you removed Firefox from your system. Office has NOTHING to do with Firefox except that Microsoft has control over it and is using it as leverage to get what they want, which is for you to buy all your software from them when it conflicts with something similar they happen to sell. Microsoft never went that far in reality, but got in trouble for just trying to stack the deck a bit (pre-install Explorer and make deals with their resellers to no pre-install Netscape).

Apple does this kind of thing all the time with the iOS platform. They don't allow 'competing software' with one of their products. They do everything they can (and are going even further lately) to force sales where they get a 30% cut even when they don't deserve it. They are getting really morally reprehensible and unethical, IMO.

In short, there's a big difference between "supporting" and "destroying". Apple is purposely and maliciously breaking your ebooks to try and force your hand to restore your phone to unjailbroken condition. That is a far cry from just not "supporting". That is purposely attacking your phone and your property (the ebooks you have the legal right to read).

It's yet another case of tying something in one market to prop up, control or force action in another market. Just because a company controls a gas station and an anti-freeze company that doesn't give them the right to refuse to sell you gas just because you didn't buy their brand of anti-freeze!

.

No. Jailbreaking now falls within an exception of the DMCA so it is not a violation of that law.

Jailbreaking is a violation of 17 USC 106(2) (the copyright law dealing with creation of derivative works). It may, however, be excepted from legal liability by 17 USC 107.

You're assuming a derivative work is created and therefore making an abstract assumption (see Microsoft, CPM and DOS and the whole concept of reverse engineering). 17 USC 107 pertains to possible fair use, which is a different matter.

In any case, the question is whether a company has the legal right to purposely break unrelated software in an effort to get you to comply with something you legally don't have to comply with (i.e. returning a jailbreak phone to factory order). Apple doesn't want to stop you from reading books (that you purchased from them no less). They want you to stop jailbreaking your phone so you can avoid their App store (so they get the sale). Can you even imagine if Microsoft broke Windows so it couldn't run Microsoft Office until you removed Firefox off your computer? THAT is what Apple is doing here. If that's not illegal, it darn well should be!

 

[cmaier]

You're assuming a derivative work is created and therefore making an abstract assumption (see Microsoft, CPM and DOS and the whole concept of reverse engineering). 17 USC 107 pertains to possible fair use, which is a different matter.

Yes. Clearly a derivative work is created. The work (iOS) is modified. This is the exclusive right of the copyright holder (Apple). Apple has not granted a license (unlike with, say, OS X) to you to modify it. Therefore it is a derivative work.

Thus the only way it is not an infringement of the exclusive rights granted by 17 USC 106 is if it falls under the exception stated in 17 USC 107. It may or may not.

In any case, the question is whether a company has the legal right to purposely break unrelated software in an effort to get you to comply with something you legally don't have to comply with (i.e. returning a jailbreak phone to factory order).

Lost you there. You legally do have to comply with the license agreement. You legally do have to comply with 17 USC 106 subject to 17 USC 107. The so-called "jailbreaking exception" grants immunity from the DMCA, but not from 17 USC 106 or from the license agreement.

Apple doesn't want to stop you from reading books (that you purchased from them no less). They want you to stop jailbreaking your phone so you can avoid their App store (so they get the sale). Can you even imagine if Microsoft broke Windows so it couldn't run Microsoft Office until you removed Firefox off your computer? THAT is what Apple is doing here. If that's not illegal, it darn well should be!

Perhaps it should be, but it's not. It would be illegal if Microsoft did it, because Microsoft would be extending a monopoly into an unrelated market. Apple has no monopoly.

 

[faroZ06]

That is the definition of a derivative work. The copyrighted iOS is replaced by a variation of the iOS that is derived from the copyrighted iOS.



Distributing is a DIFFERENT illegal act (17 USC 106(3)). But merely creating a derivative work, whether you distribute it or not, is forbidden by 17 USC 106(2).



No, not at all similar. One is an antitrust issue, the other a copyright issue. MS didn't tell users they couldn't install netscape.

The OS isn't replaced, it's modified. You don't make a derivative work. Otherwise, I would get sued for dying my shirt red since I modded it.

MS and Apple both attempted to prevent users from installing software. The MS incident was more of an app than a mod, but that's why I said "debatably".

 

[faroZ06]

Yes. Clearly a derivative work is created. The work (iOS) is modified. This is the exclusive right of the copyright holder (Apple). Apple has not granted a license (unlike with, say, OS X) to you to modify it. Therefore it is a derivative work.

Thus the only way it is not an infringement of the exclusive rights granted by 17 USC 106 is if it falls under the exception stated in 17 USC 107. It may or may not.



Lost you there. You legally do have to comply with the license agreement. You legally do have to comply with 17 USC 106 subject to 17 USC 107. The so-called "jailbreaking exception" grants immunity from the DMCA, but not from 17 USC 106 or from the license agreement.



Perhaps it should be, but it's not. It would be illegal if Microsoft did it, because Microsoft would be extending a monopoly into an unrelated market. Apple has no monopoly.

I don't see how the Office-FireFox analogy is different from the iBooks-JB. They're both instances of a company denying the use of their products since you are installing something else. What is different? One is Apple?

 

[Apollo 13]

Guys, cool it. I found something on Cydia from a French repository that enables iBooks for the iOS 4 jailbreak.

As I said, nothing to worry about. They got around it.

WOW all those big ass letters and you didn't even tell us where to start to fix the problem.

 

[michaelcyee]

WOW all those big ass letters and you didn't even tell us where to start to fix the problem.

The Cydia file is floating around the Internet. It's called "hunnypot" and you can either use iFile and Safari Download Manager on your iOS device, SSH it, or use IFunBox etc. to get it on the device.

Some repos have the fix already. In the repo I used it's called "iBooks fix"; YMMV, but check Recent Changes, and look for a tweak; skip past the hundreds of themes.

 

[BaldiMac]

Apparently you take exception to the words "legal" and "valid". You apparently think that the exception granted to jailbreak phones in order to install legally obtained software is NOT legal or valid? This is clearly not true on the planet Earth in the United States of America as per:

Now perhaps you live in another country or on another planet where it is not legal or valid to jailbreak a phone in order to install legally obtained software, but I'm speaking about Earth and the USA here.

Please read what I wrote and don't just assume what I mean. The quote that you provided only speaks to the legality of jailbreaking with respect to the DMCA. The DMCA is not the only law there is on Earth or in the USA. Jailbreaking may or may not be a violation of copyright law and/or contract law with respect to Apple's SLA.

LOL. Just because the government says it's legal, that doesn't mean it really is legal!

While that is technically true (It's up to the courts to decide), it's not what I said. I said that just because the government doesn't consider it a violation of the DMCA doesn't mean that it doesn't violate other laws.

Don't let logic keep you from ranting onward, though. Keep telling us how it's not legal even though it is. I'm sure I'll now get the usual 20 page lecture on how wrong I am. I'm sure you'll have fun for the next hour or two.

And the usual personal attack.

Apple is purposely purposely interfering with your right to view legally obtained books, which you have every right to view in order to obtain an unrelated goal of getting you to stop using software from "stores" or "users" whereby Apple does not receive 30% of the revenue for the sale or cannot control what appears on your screen (you might view pRoN after all on a sacred Apple device!). Given you have every right to jailbreak your phone in order to run such software (that they don't want you to run), they are purposely and maliciously trying to prevent you from doing something you are now legally entitled to do and using an unrelated store-bought item (tying of a sort again) to do it.

It would be like Microsoft disabling your copy of Microsoft Office until you removed Firefox from your system. Office has NOTHING to do with Firefox except that Microsoft has control over it and is using it as leverage to get what they want, which is for you to buy all your software from them when it conflicts with something similar they happen to sell. Microsoft never went that far in reality, but got in trouble for just trying to stack the deck a bit (pre-install Explorer and make deals with their resellers to no pre-install Netscape).

Apple does this kind of thing all the time with the iOS platform. They don't allow 'competing software' with one of their products. They do everything they can (and are going even further lately) to force sales where they get a 30% cut even when they don't deserve it. They are getting really morally reprehensible and unethical, IMO.

In short, there's a big difference between "supporting" and "destroying". Apple is purposely and maliciously breaking your ebooks to try and force your hand to restore your phone to unjailbroken condition. That is a far cry from just not "supporting". That is purposely attacking your phone and your property (the ebooks you have the legal right to read).

It's yet another case of tying something in one market to prop up, control or force action in another market.

And I'm the one that spends hours on 20 page lectures? The only reason my posts get long is that they contain quotes from you.

Just because a company controls a gas station and an anti-freeze company that doesn't give them the right to refuse to sell you gas just because you didn't buy their brand of anti-freeze!

Of course they have that right! (Unless they have a monopoly in one of the markets, of course.) In what country is it that companies don't bundle products?

The OS isn't replaced, it's modified. You don't make a derivative work.

Modifying the OS is creating a derivative work by definition.

 

[cmaier]

The OS isn't replaced, it's modified. You don't make a derivative work. Otherwise, I would get sued for dying my shirt red since I modded it.

MS and Apple both attempted to prevent users from installing software. The MS incident was more of an app than a mod, but that's why I said "debatably".

If the shirt is a creative work (may or may not be), an thus copyrighted, you can indeed be sued for dying it red (subject to defenses like fair use, implied license, and exhaustion). It's a derivative work. I know it seems wrong, but I assure you it is true. The reason such suits are rare (they do happen) is they are more expensive than they are worth, and you usually would have a fair use or implied license defense.

And MS didn't try to prevent users from installing anything. They simply installed their own thing so that users wouldn't bother installing Netscape. In other cases they made other software run worse than their own, but even there they didn't try to limit the rights of users to install what they wanted.

Apple is directly limiting the rights of users, by using the EULA to eliminate the I
implied license that might otherwise be granted. In other words, they are enforcing 17 USC 106, which takes away certain rights from the public.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Yes. Clearly a derivative work is created. The work (iOS) is modified. This is the exclusive right of the copyright holder (Apple). Apple has not granted a license (unlike with, say, OS X) to you to modify it. Therefore it is a derivative work.

I think there might be question of definition to answer there. A derivative work is one based on the work of someone else, but pretending to stand on its own. A hack or modification of something in order to get it to jailbreak isn't really the same thing. No one is claiming to own the software in question. Given a jailbreak (apparently by your own admission) isn't possible without such a modification, the exemption to the DMCA is meaningless without the ability to modify the software to make the jailbreak work. This basically results in Reductio ad absurdum. The fair use clause of copyright law has already had precedent to allow infringement under these sorts of conditions since an exemption to the DMCA cannot be followed otherwise. I realize the part you were quoting is the fair use clause, but I think these bare explaining as they relate to Apple.

Here are two previous copyright fair use examples, one involving Sega and another involving Nintendo. Notice that in the Sega case the judge ruled that Sega had no right to have a monopoly over what games could be used with its system and yet we know that Sega was a minor player compared to Nintendo in the console arena at the time. All you armchair laywers that keep telling me that a company has to be big enough to qualify as a legal monopoly will have a hard time explaining that one because it is no different than Apple claiming you have to use their App store and be a licensed developer to sell software for iOS devices. These cases clearly prove that false. Apple has no such rights by this precedent.

In this case, Accolade was judged not guilty of copyright infringement despite reverse engineering by way of looking directly at Sega's code in order to make games Sega didn't want Accolade to make after not being able to agree on a price for license to sell games for Sega.

In Sega Enterprises, Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc.,[12] the court excused Accolade from copyright infringement liability on fair use grounds. Nintendo and Sega produced video game consoles for playing video games. Each stored the games in plastic cartridges that provided game data to the consoles. By way of analogy, the Sega hardware console's “platform” differed from Nintendo's, as a Macintosh platform differs from that of a PC. Hence, a video game cartridge that works on one system does not work on the other. Sega and Nintendo sought to “license” access to their hardware platforms, and each company developed software "locks" to keep out cartridges that did not have the proper "key." Accolade sought a license from Sega for its key, but negotiations broke down over price. Accolade then decided to reverse engineer Sega's lock and key system. To do so, it had to download (copy) all of the computer code from Sega's product and disassemble it (translate it from 1s and 0s to a human-intelligible format). Accolade succeeded and began to market new video games that it independently wrote, which were capable of being operated in Sega consoles. This led to copyright infringement litigation, in which Sega alleged that the downloading was improper copying (reproduction) of Sega's code. The court held that Sega was trying to use the copyright in its computer code to maintain a monopoly over the sale of video games, to which it was not legally entitled. Accolade downloaded the computer code only to ascertain how the lock worked, so that it could make a key that would permit its games to work in Sega consoles. The court held that such a use was fair use: "We conclude that where disassembly is the only way to gain access to the ideas and functional elements embodied in a copyrighted computer program and where there is a legitimate reason for seeking such access, disassembly is a fair use of the copyrighted work, as a matter of law."[13]

Here Galoob Toys was selling a device that modified copyrighted software in real time in order to offer the player things like level skips, unlimited lives, etc. This is clearly modifying software and creating a real-time derivative work (not unlike a jailbreak mod) and they were declared not guilty of copyright infringement under fair use.

In Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.,[10] the appellate court held that it was a fair use for owners of copies of video games, such as Super Mario Bros., to use Galoob's product the Game Genie to customize the difficulty or other characteristics of the game by granting a character more strength, speed, or endurance. Nintendo strongly opposed Galoob's product, allegedly because it interfered with the maintenance of the "Nintendo Culture," which Nintendo claimed was important to its marketing program.[11] The court held, among other things, that the fair use defense shielded Galoob's conduct. The court said that "a party who distributes a copyrighted work cannot dictate how that work is to be enjoyed. Consumers may use ... a Game Genie to enhance a Nintendo Game cartridge’s audiovisual display in such a way as to make the experience more enjoyable."

Perhaps it should be, but it's not. It would be illegal if Microsoft did it, because Microsoft would be extending a monopoly into an unrelated market. Apple has no monopoly.

Anti-trust law doesn't require a monopoly, only significant market power, which in Apple's case would be up to a judge to decide. Similarly, the Psystar case never settled whether Apple's contracts are legal because it never got to that argument as the judge ruled they had no right to distribute or modify OSX in the first place, so the question still exists. Furthermore, given the above precedents for making software available for a platform where the owner of that platform doesn't want it to be available, I still question the judge's decision overall. The ONLY difference between these cases and Psystar is that Psystar modified the OS to go on their own hardware instead of modifying their software so it would work on Apple's hardware (the reverse of software/hardware). It is just too similar to the precedent in every other respect. The judge never even considered it. It should be appealed, IMO.

And the usual personal attack.

You should look up what a personal attack is before you accuse someone of it. I'm simply describing past precedent. Nowhere did I insult you. My observation is that you seem to enjoy arguing just to argue. You never admit you're wrong (at least you haven't yet) and any observable fact you don't like is labeled a "conspiracy theory" and dismissed as if it doesn't exist. You routinely selectively ignore all parts of the post that you cannot answer and then reply to the rest as if those parts didn't exist. In short, trying to have a conversation with you seems a difficult proposition at best. I only ever reply to something you write so that others may learn something by it.

And I'm the one that spends hours on 20 page lectures? The only reason my posts get long is that they contain quotes from you.

So now you're telling me you don't know how to trim quotes? I mean I wrote it so I only need a short quote to refresh my memory on what you're talking about. This was moderated newsgroup etiquette 101 back in the day before Web Forums became the norm. Trim the quotes.

Of course they have that right! (Unless they have a monopoly in one of the markets, of course.) In what country is it that companies don't bundle products?

Bundle? My example was a gas station refusing to sell you gas because you don't want to buy their radiator coolant that they're pushing. In what country is a gas station allowed to refuse service because you don't also want to buy all their other products? I never said they were bundled. What gas station bundles radiator flushes with gasoline for goodness sake???

Modifying the OS is creating a derivative work by definition.

And it falls under the fair use precedents above. Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on unless a given judge just wants to throw all previous precedents to the wind, in which case it can be appealed.

 

[cmaier]

Quite a treatise, but not correct. First, a derivative work does not "pretend to stand on its own." A derivative work is modifying a work to create a new work. Period. End of sentence.

The exception to the DMCA "is meaningless without the ability to modify the software to make the jailbreak work." The body that decided on the jailbreak exception to the DMCA has NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to do anything beyond that. They cannot declare something to be a fair use exception (17 USC 107). That's our point. Just because the DMCA doesn't apply doesn't mean OTHER laws don't apply.

The Psystar case is a case where modifying the OS for hackintoshing was found to create a derivative work.

The issue of whether something is fair use or not is a separate issue from whether there is a derivative work such that 17 USC 106(2) might apply. There is a test for fair use, embodied in 17 USC 107. You simply apply the test. The precedents you point to don't apply because they would be different under the test.

I think there might be question of definition to answer there. A derivative work is one based on the work of someone else, but pretending to stand on its own. A hack or modification of something in order to get it to jailbreak isn't really the same thing. No one is claiming to own the software in question. Given a jailbreak (apparently by your own admission) isn't possible without such a modification, the exemption to the DMCA is meaningless without the ability to modify the software to make the jailbreak work. This basically results in Reductio ad absurdum. The fair use clause of copyright law has already had precedent to allow infringement under these sorts of conditions since an exemption to the DMCA cannot be followed otherwise. I realize the part you were quoting is the fair use clause, but I think these bare explaining as they relate to Apple.

Here are two previous copyright fair use examples, one involving Sega and another involving Nintendo. Notice that in the Sega case the judge ruled that Sega had no right to have a monopoly over what games could be used with its system and yet we know that Sega was a minor player compared to Nintendo in the console arena at the time. All you armchair laywers that keep telling me that a company has to be big enough to qualify as a legal monopoly will have a hard time explaining that one because it is no different than Apple claiming you have to use their App store and be a licensed developer to sell software for iOS devices. These cases clearly prove that false. Apple has no such rights by this precedent.

In this case, Accolade was judged not guilty of copyright infringement despite reverse engineering by way of looking directly at Sega's code in order to make games Sega didn't want Accolade to make after not being able to agree on a price for license to sell games for Sega.



Here Galoob Toys was selling a device that modified copyrighted software in real time in order to offer the player things like level skips, unlimited lives, etc. This is clearly modifying software and creating a real-time derivative work (not unlike a jailbreak mod) and they were declared not guilty of copyright infringement under fair use.





Anti-trust law doesn't require a monopoly, only significant market power, which in Apple's case would be up to a judge to decide. Similarly, the Psystar case never settled whether Apple's contracts are legal because it never got to that argument as the judge ruled they had no right to distribute or modify OSX in the first place, so the question still exists. Furthermore, given the above precedents for making software available for a platform where the owner of that platform doesn't want it to be available, I still question the judge's decision overall. The ONLY difference between these cases and Psystar is that Psystar modified the OS to go on their own hardware instead of modifying their software so it would work on Apple's hardware (the reverse of software/hardware). It is just too similar to the precedent in every other respect. The judge never even considered it. It should be appealed, IMO.