Actually it's not like that. It's more like, you bought customized third party parts for you car, but the car manufacturer put in a little check to see that if you have any 3rd party parts, it will automatically break your engine until you take those parts off.
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.
iBooks 1.2.1 Detects Some Jailbreaks, Disables iBookstore Purchases in Response
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually it's not like that. It's more like, you bought customized third party parts for you car, but the car manufacturer put in a little check to see that if you have any 3rd party parts, it will automatically break your engine until you take those parts off.
People have bought Apple products and are being blocked from using them. If Apple don't want jailbreakers to be able to use iBooks, apps, music or videos purchased from iTunes then fine.
Stop them before they buy the media, not afterwards.
Exactly. It's shady as hell to take the people's money and then alert them that they can't open the content. If you let us know beforehand, then I have no problem with these measures whatsoever.
But why
Why not go after pirated apps? Itunes can tell the difference, thats why thieves have to deleate the old apps and redown load the newest cracked apps. Why not go after them, look for installius, leave the rest of us that buy legit apple and 3rd party apps alone.
I get them voiding the warrenty, we are taking a chance they dont want to cover but to blocked paid content when they could go after the people actually getting cracked apps?!?!
Let me clarify. Your logic is sensible and I'm not against it in anyway. I'm for Apple in this situation because I feel that they have the right to control services provided to their devices, and can deny service if their device is configured in a way that see unfitting (No shirt, no shoes, no service kind of deal). My views on this topic are in no way related to piracy.
Simple solution to this:
Download the previous version of iBooks on installous
or
wait for the jailbreak community to come up with a tweak to fix this, which will be imminent
It's not the end of the world guys
Download the previous version of iBooks on installous
or
wait for the jailbreak community to come up with a tweak to fix this, which will be imminent
It's not the end of the world guys
I wouldnt care if they were just going after cracked apps, seems like it would be so easy to detect that vs a "legit" jailbreak with only paid and free legal content.
If you take a seat at a bar and then begin to act unruly, should management not be allowed to remove you from the premises?
Jailbreaking is not a violation of the DMCA per se. However, if you read the article, it seems that Apple checks whether applications that have been copied illegally would run on the device, and in that case iBookStore doesn't run. So they are explicitly checking for a device that _is_ in violation of the DMCA.
I can't say I really feel bad about this - you have to expect issue if you jailbreak. Simple solution #1 - Don't jailbreak. Simple solution #2 dont buy any ibooks.
Me too. Oh, and they should refund the money on previously purchased content. Or no, we didn't buy content, we bought rights. Whatever. They can't sell something then prevent you from using it.
Its completely in apples hands if people want to jailbreak. Give what people want and then there will be no reason to jailbreak. Well except the freeloaders that want paid apps free... I just want the ability to unlock after contract is up!!
"≠" means "not equals"
The Copyright Office merely established an exemption to liability. It didn't say that Apple can't discourage / attempt to prevent jailbreaking. It merely said that, if you the end-user jailbreak, Apple cannot sue you for DMCA violations.
Freedom
I haven't read any of the other comments and can't take the time to do so right now, though I would enjoy it.
I just wanted to say that Apple should have every right as a company to put whatever measures in place that it sees fit to prevent jailbreaking. And you have every right to not buy their products as a result, if you like. Regardless of what laws are passed or not passed, what is good and right is that you should be allowed to jailbreak your phone, but Apple should be allowed to try to prevent it. That's freedom.
Under almost all circumstances, no company should be prevented by law from making any product they see fit to make, in any way they see fit to make it. There are very few exceptions to this, if any. The whims of the consumer should not be forced upon a company. A company can, if it so chooses, change their product based on consumer demand, but should not be forced to do so by law.
I haven't read any of the other comments and can't take the time to do so right now, though I would enjoy it.
I just wanted to say that Apple should have every right as a company to put whatever measures in place that it sees fit to prevent jailbreaking. And you have every right to not buy their products as a result, if you like. Regardless of what laws are passed or not passed, what is good and right is that you should be allowed to jailbreak your phone, but Apple should be allowed to try to prevent it. That's freedom.
Under almost all circumstances, no company should be prevented by law from making any product they see fit to make, in any way they see fit to make it. There are very few exceptions to this, if any. The whims of the consumer should not be forced upon a company. A company can, if it so chooses, change their product based on consumer demand, but should not be forced to do so by law.
Huge difference between something not working in a future update and intentionality breaking it. Apple choose to intentionally break it. Apple has crossed a huge line.
I'm generally ok with Apple choosing to implement measures to make jailbreaking more difficult. I wish they wouldn't, but I don't think it's wrong of them to do so.
However, this is going too far. If you purchase a book off of iBooks, but then jailbreak your device, your right to read that book shouldn't be revoked. I don't know if there's a potential legal issue (no armchair lawyering for me), but I certainly think this one is a very bad policy for Apple. I hope they decide to back off on this one.
jW
However, this is going too far. If you purchase a book off of iBooks, but then jailbreak your device, your right to read that book shouldn't be revoked. I don't know if there's a potential legal issue (no armchair lawyering for me), but I certainly think this one is a very bad policy for Apple. I hope they decide to back off on this one.
jW
But the law does not agree with you, that is why the library of congress (not sure why they have the say) made it spicifically legal to jailbreak, even mentioned the dev team.
Theft of paid services remains illegal and detectable, I just think they would be better served by going after the actuall crooks
It is pretty simple. The DRM gets broken so the app won't work. Don't like DRM? Then don't buy media that uses it.
This isn't stoping jailbreaking it is stoping a DRM reader from running when DRM isn't functioning correctly.
Book publishers require Apple to have some sort of piracy prevention if Apple is going to sell books. That's all there is to it.
I love apple products... but it seems like the company is resembling a socialist democracy
Do you think it would be okay if you had an iPhone 3G, bought some iBooks, and then a few years later Apple says that you can no longer view iBooks that you bought on the 3G, you must upgrade to an iPhone 4 or newer, and then proceeded to disable the viewing of iBooks on all 3Gs?
After all, Apple has the right to control the services it provides to its devices and has control over the means through which you must view legally purchased content.