The only "people" that matters is the EFF (and that Stanford law professor) who got us the DMCA exemptions from 3 years ago --- and they are the same people who are currently asking the Copyright Office for enlarging the DMCA exemption to include jailbreaking.
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.
Is it illegal for you to sell Jailbreak services or iphone/ipod touch?
- Thread starter sako94
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The only "people" that matters is the EFF (and that Stanford law professor) who got us the DMCA exemptions from 3 years ago --- and they are the same people who are currently asking the Copyright Office for enlarging the DMCA exemption to include jailbreaking.
If you cancel the contract within the first month of service, you have to return the phone. That's what the contract entails.
Massive logical fallacy. A and B are in set Z. C is not like A nor B, therefore it's not in the set.
Lots of things aren't murder and aren't robbery but still are quite illegal and can land you in jail.
You own the phone, but you only have a license to the software, and you agreed to Apple's terms. Further, jailbreaking may violate the DMCA by defeating technological measures used to secure a device, and therefore be illegal.
1) DMCA (see, e.g.: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/01/iphone-developers-support-effs-dmca-exemption-jail )
2) violation of civil contract with Apple re: license agreement for OS.
Was that the question? I though the question was "is it ILLEGAL," not "am I going to get the death penalty?"
No but your making it sound like they have much to worry about.
Felony jailbreak arrest
Felony jailbreak arrest
Yah and that's when they'll kick down the door to collect the phone? That's kinda like the myths about the FCC's authority to confiscate modified CB radios for running more than 4 watts back in the 80's it's contract law which is for the most part unenforceable BS I'd like to see Apple try getting a cop to enforce a company policy. Jail breaking an I phone to use another companies service is not illegal otherwise the company writing the contract to provide service for the jail broken iPhone would refuse to do so. You provide money for an object with the intent of ownership the object is yours even if it is a brick. Rental is reasonable for a roof to live under or getting a car for a few days, but beyond that if you put out lots of cash for a gadget you're not renting it for the first month YOU OWN IT. Only thing that is owned by the company is the patent for the design not the physical device. Patents are important because they prevent reproductions of devices by competitors but patents do not protect the inventors rights as to the devices specific use. Goods have been paid for the device physically is in possession of its intended purchaser and at that point the device design itself is still protected operating systems are matters of copyright. Delete or modify the OS and the copyright does not hold at best a company can sue for damages for plagiarism if somebody modified the OS and took credit for the original without citing that their own modifications were based on the original... that is the extent of federal laws.
If you charge to JB a phone you are a scammer and a pathetic loser. You use others hard work to make a buck and that's just sad. How about you help others do it for free... show them how, link them to the tutorials. If they can't then just do it for them... What, you're out 5 minutes? Scam on scammers, karma's a beotch.
My craigslist posting to fight POS scammers that charge to JB!
http://denver.craigslist.org/mob/1270020170.html
My craigslist posting to fight POS scammers that charge to JB!
http://denver.craigslist.org/mob/1270020170.html
Who cares? Just an honest assessment. Apple obviously tries to do nothing to legally stop it. So jailbreak if you want. I've bought all 3 iPhones and they've all been jailbroken all but the first 2-3 days i had the first one.. that and time between new FW release and jailbreak.
You're not scamming anyone by charging to jailbreak it. You're scamming them if you try to convince them it normally costs to jailbreak anyway. Lying = scamming. Asking extra for something, when you're taking time out of your day, or just want more money, to do it.. then you're fine. Just don't lie or deceive to do it.
That depends where you live - for example, if you live in the UK the DMCA doesn't apply so you can do what you want with impunity (apart from potentially losing your warranty!)
But I'm sure that the UK does have basic copyright laws that are consistent with the Berne Convention, stating in effect, that the act of creating a new derivative work based in large part upon somebody else's existing copyrighted material, without first obtaining permission from that other person, is a breach of that other person's exclusive rights as copyright holder.
Furthermore, making additional copies of copyrighted material for distribution, either an unmodified version or a modified version, without first obtaining the permission of the copyright holder, is also a breach of the copyright holder's exclusive rights.
In this case, there would be at least two copyright holders from whom you'd need to obtain permission before opening up a jailbreak distribution service: Apple for the original firmware, and (presuming for the moment that the iPhone Dev Team are, themselves, free and clear) the iPhone Dev Team for the jailbreak modifications.
Performing either of those activities without permission is a criminal offence. (ie. More than just a civil matter)
[edit]There are, of course, some exceptions such as fair use (and possibly others), depending on the scope of the duplication, the degree of modification, the manner of redistribution, the purpose of the modification, etc. (An example of the latter exception is the USA DMCA exception dealing with modifications to unlock a phone, when performed for the sole purpose of connecting to a different wireless service provider.) These exception may vary depending on your jurisdiction.[/edit]
Of course, none of this constitutes legal advice - I am not qualified to be your lawyer.
Yea. But I think Jailbraking is considered wrong in Apple's eyes..
The original comment was about it being a scam to charge someone to help them jailbreak, which it's not. I have helped over two dozen people jailbreak in the past year. Some people just don't know how to do these things. I have been paid from $5 to $20 each.
No, they'll just charge you full price and if you don't pay your credit score ceases to exist.
So you equate paying lots of money with ignoring contracts to which you agreed. There are so many things wrong with this view.
True. Laws in various countries vary. In any country you are probably civilly liable for violating your license agreement with Apple, and in some countries, this may result in copyright infringement.
If you are selling the software,No. If you are selling the service, it depends on who you talk to.
Um, no.
1) First, a patent does provide an inventor with exclusive rights to make, sell, or USE a patented invention. The patentee may provide you, for example, with a license to use the invention. The patentee may attach conditions to that license.
2) Copyright allows an author to have exclusive rights to copy, distribute and modify (among other things) a protected work, including an operating system. If you "modify" the OS, you are infringing the copyright (by creating a derivative work). An author may provide you with a license to some portion of the copyright (for example, the right to copy, but not modify, etc.) and may attach conditions to that license.
Apple wouldn't "sue for plagiarism" and it wouldn't matter if you "took credit." 35 USC prohibits making a copy, whether or not you profit, and whether or not you take credit. You may not make a copy even if you keep the copy for yourself. Similarly, you may not make a derivative work, whether or not you distribute it or take credit. See (4) below re: fair use, however.
3) When you buy something, you enter into a contract. The seller may attach conditions to the contract of sale, such as a license agreement.
4) It is true that there are limits to what conditions may be attached without violating anti-trust and other laws. Certain copyright infringement is found to be legally acceptable due to fair use. Etc.
5) The DMCA prohibits the circumvention of technological measures intended to secure a device. There is, as of now, no fair use exception to the DMCA prohibitions, though there are enumerated exceptions.
Now, Apple has patents on the device, copyrights on the software, and you entered into a license agreement with them when you purchased the device. You own the device, but you don't own the software or any of the intellectual property rights. Apple holds all the IP rights, and you have a license to use the device subject to the conditions Apple has imposed.
So, "delete" the OS and you are violating your license agreement. "Modify" the OS and you are infringing Apple's copyright and, probably, the DMCA.
Copyright only only provides protection from direct plagerism (taking credit for another artists work). Interpret the laws all you want the bare facts are simple, modifications are not protected under copyright permission is not needed, all one simply has to do is properly cite their sources before publishing anyone who has taken a college course knows this. Otherwise they would have jailed the entire pop art movement decades ago for stealing others art works and modifying them for their own gain. Or every student who wrote an essay based on somebody elses work would have to pay royalties for everything they quoted or paraphrased in their own publications and submissions for the academic gain.
If you write a book and Tommy in 8th grade English class writes a scathing essay about how crappy it is quoting or paraphrasing excerpts are you gonna demand payment because he stands to gain for his work?
Licensing a product is a separate issue to a patent, patents create a monopoly for a device and its physical design but do not protect the product from alternative uses as the consumer sees fit nor does it prevent another inventor from modifying a device enough to file a separate patent based on the original device.
Licensing is a private contract in this instance and not a law this is what is used by the creator to prevent a potential misuse that could lead to a loss of profit on the creators behalf all the licensing in the world will not protect the inventor from the consumers use and as far as credit scores go 300-500 dollars is a small threat to a credit score compared to filing a bankruptcy or defaulting on a house or car loan. Which are things that range in the tens to hundreds of thousands. All licensing is capable of at best is breaking the agreement to service the device by its creator.
But its a contract right it is the total authority? Yes and no contracts are binding, but only as far as the law allows--for example I can own slaves if I have a contract stating that a person or persons are my property for life(Hey I can buy me a basketball team!) or I can pen an agreement with a suicidal party to direct a snuff flick but there are laws that disagree with the issues for which the contracts are based.
Contracts can be invalidated where they conflict with other contracts and laws from local to federal levels. And even if a contract has a law backing it if another law exists that contradicts that law the legal problems will come up that may void the contract. There may even be no law related to a contract stipulation at all in those cases one could be sued and lose but that's a 50/50 chance.
If you write a book and Tommy in 8th grade English class writes a scathing essay about how crappy it is quoting or paraphrasing excerpts are you gonna demand payment because he stands to gain for his work?
Licensing a product is a separate issue to a patent, patents create a monopoly for a device and its physical design but do not protect the product from alternative uses as the consumer sees fit nor does it prevent another inventor from modifying a device enough to file a separate patent based on the original device.
Licensing is a private contract in this instance and not a law this is what is used by the creator to prevent a potential misuse that could lead to a loss of profit on the creators behalf all the licensing in the world will not protect the inventor from the consumers use and as far as credit scores go 300-500 dollars is a small threat to a credit score compared to filing a bankruptcy or defaulting on a house or car loan. Which are things that range in the tens to hundreds of thousands. All licensing is capable of at best is breaking the agreement to service the device by its creator.
But its a contract right it is the total authority? Yes and no contracts are binding, but only as far as the law allows--for example I can own slaves if I have a contract stating that a person or persons are my property for life(Hey I can buy me a basketball team!) or I can pen an agreement with a suicidal party to direct a snuff flick but there are laws that disagree with the issues for which the contracts are based.
Contracts can be invalidated where they conflict with other contracts and laws from local to federal levels. And even if a contract has a law backing it if another law exists that contradicts that law the legal problems will come up that may void the contract. There may even be no law related to a contract stipulation at all in those cases one could be sued and lose but that's a 50/50 chance.
You are 100% wrong. There is no "interpretation" necessary. "taking credit" is not required.
17 USC 106: (relevant portions)
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:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
That is what the copyright-holder has the exclusive rights to. When you copy, modify, or distribute a copy, you are infringing the copyright-holders rights and you are committing copyright infringement. There is nothing in the statutes about "taking credit" for something or not correctly attributing something.
The examples you gave are "fair use." (which I mentioned in my last post) Fair use is a defense to copyright infringement (but not to the DMCA) created by the courts, and is not in the statutes. Fair use only applies under certain conditions; the amount of copying is small, the modification is transformative, you aren't competing in the marketplace with the copyright holder, etc. Jailbreaking may or may not be fair use; no court has yet opined on it as far as I know. However, that doesn't get you around the DMCA.
You are also wrong re: patents. As a patent-holder, I have a monopoly on the design AND THE USE of the product.
35 USC 271: (relevant portion)
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
Thus if you USE my patented invention without my permission (i.e. "authority" in the statute), you are committing patent infringement. And if the patent-holder says "you can use my patented invention as long as you stand on one leg" and you use it without standing on one leg, then you don't have the patent-holder's permission. If you have a license (authority) to use the invention, and you break the license agreement, it's possible you have no authority (depending on the license and other factors) and thus are committing patent infringement. The same applies to copyright - if I am licensed the right to create copies of an OS (e..g: to download it onto my harddrive and install it onto my iphone) that does not mean i have a license to modify it. And by breaking the license, I may not have any license at all.
Quit making up the law. You haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.