Is it illegal for you to sell Jailbreak services or iphone/ipod touch?

[Ttownbeast]

Quit making up the law. You haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.

I didn't make this up the patent office did. If what you are saying is true in your own mind where are the cops? I don't hear anyone banging on my door yet.

You are confusing laws with company policies just because somebody has "the right to authorize" by law doesn't stop anyone from copying or modifying for profit when properly noted credit is given to the original creator that's copyright and the modifier is protected (and that only counts federally...state laws may differ and state power trumps federal at least in theory according to the constitution)--don't give credit and it's assumed to be plagerism then the modifier could be sued for taking full credit. Selling items second hand is at issue too otherwise vendors would be forced to pay royalties on literature sold at second hand book stores and garage sales everything that is resold no matter how many times would generate billions in royalties to the original creators.

And there is also the issue of foreign patents for similar products there is nothing in patent law preventing two separate inventors from submitting the same patent designs in different nations and selling them wherever they please patents do not protect completely. A submits patent in US B submits same design for patent in UK both start production and distribute their products A cannot sue B for infringement even if both are sold on the same market in the same countries there is a monopoly, but there are loopholes.

 

[scotland007]

Handbags at 10 paces....

 

[goosnarrggh]

...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...

In fact, some forms of fair use have been codified into the law. See, for example, 17 USC 107:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Congress's intent was that the addition of 17 USC 107 would supplement, rather than replace, any prior case law regarding fair use that had existed prior to its adoption.


Beyond the traditional definition of fair use, 17 USC 108 through 122 also list other situations in which the copyright holder's exclusive rights do not apply.

Ttownbeast, some of the codified exceptions include criticism, teaching, scholarship, and research pursuits. However, as soon as you graduate from school and leave the academia, your selection of fair use exceptions become much more limited.

 

[rjohnstone]

And there is also the issue of foreign patents for similar products there is nothing in patent law preventing two separate inventors from submitting the same patent designs in different nations and selling them wherever they please patents do not protect completely. A submits patent in US B submits same design for patent in UK both start production and distribute their products A cannot sue B for infringement even if both are sold on the same market in the same countries there is a monopoly, but there are loopholes.

Wrong.
Party A CAN sue party B for infringement if party B's patent is not recognized in the party A's country. In most cases, party B would simply not be allowed to sell their product in party A's country.

Patent laws are not black and white. There are treaties in place to make sure that both parties are treated equally and retain the rights to their intellectual property.
Same thing applies for Trademarks and Copyrights.

China still does not recognize our laws regarding intellectual property.

 

[cmaier]

I didn't make this up the patent office did. If what you are saying is true in your own mind where are the cops? I don't hear anyone banging on my door yet.

You are confusing laws with company policies just because somebody has "the right to authorize" by law doesn't stop anyone from copying or modifying for profit when properly noted credit is given to the original creator that's copyright and the modifier is protected (and that only counts federally...state laws may differ and state power trumps federal at least in theory according to the constitution)--don't give credit and it's assumed to be plagerism then the modifier could be sued for taking full credit. Selling items second hand is at issue too otherwise vendors would be forced to pay royalties on literature sold at second hand book stores and garage sales everything that is resold no matter how many times would generate billions in royalties to the original creators.

And there is also the issue of foreign patents for similar products there is nothing in patent law preventing two separate inventors from submitting the same patent designs in different nations and selling them wherever they please patents do not protect completely. A submits patent in US B submits same design for patent in UK both start production and distribute their products A cannot sue B for infringement even if both are sold on the same market in the same countries there is a monopoly, but there are loopholes.

The issue with secondhand books is a legal doctrine called "copyright exhaustion" and the first sale doctrine. That is not relevant here. That issue relates specifically to the right to re-sell books, etc. That's different than the situation where you are given a license to use software, you violate the license, you have no more license.

The issue with international patents is you are again wrong. If I have a patent in the US, and you have a patent in the UK, we each have exclusive rights in our own country. I cannot sell my product in the UK and you cannot sell yours in the US. In the US, importing a product that infringes is, itself, infringement. Yes, we can both sell in some other country where no one has a patent. How is that relevant to this discussion?

Your point about "where are the cops" is a strawman argument. Lots of things violate the law but aren't enforced. And cops don't enforce civil law, only criminal law.

And quit confusing "plagiarism" with copyright infringement. I gave you the exact federal statute that defines copyright infringement.

And the "patent office" has nothing to do with copyright, and they didn't "make up" any laws - the laws are written and enacted by congress in 35 USC and 17 USC.

And this is completely wrong: ""the right to authorize" by law doesn't stop anyone from copying or modifying for profit when properly noted credit is given to the original creator that's copyright and the modifier is protected (and that only counts federally...state laws may differ and state power trumps federal at least in theory according to the constitution)"

First, the law most certainly DOES prevent copying or modifying for profit EVEN IF YOU GIVE CREDIT. 17 USC is quite clear - ONLY the copyright holder may copy, unless you are authorized. If the amount of copying is small and fits the other requirements of fair use, you are judicially granted an exception.

Second, the state laws most certainly do NOT trump federal laws here. Patents and copyright are expressly made federal matters under the U.S. constitution under Art. 1, sec.8:

Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

You literally haven't the foggiest idea what you are saying. Instead of arguing by strawman, how about point at a single federal statute that says it's okay to copy or modify a copyrighted work "as long as you give credit?" While you are at it, point at a single state law that addresses copyright or patents.

 

[cmaier]

In fact, some forms of fair use have been codified into the law. See, for example, 17 USC 107:


Congress's intent was that the addition of 17 USC 107 would supplement, rather than replace, any prior case law regarding fair use that had existed prior to its adoption.


Beyond the traditional definition of fair use, 17 USC 108 through 122 also list other situations in which the copyright holder's exclusive rights do not apply.

Ttownbeast, some of the codified exceptions include criticism, teaching, scholarship, and research pursuits. However, as soon as you graduate from school and leave the academia, your selection of fair use exceptions become much more limited.

goosnarrggh, I agree with you. I was trying not to get too far down in the weeds with this guy.

 

[goosnarrggh]

I didn't make this up the patent office did. If what you are saying is true in your own mind where are the cops? I don't hear anyone banging on my door yet.

The fact that you haven't been caught breaking the law is a separate issue from the question of whether or not the law even exists.

You are confusing laws with company policies just because somebody has "the right to authorize" by law doesn't stop anyone from copying or modifying for profit when properly noted credit is given to the original creator

Again, go back and check out the law. It is 17 USC 106. It lists the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. An exclusive right is defined as a thing that only the copyright holder is automatically allowed to do. Anybody else can only be given permission to do those things with the copyright holder's consent, or alternately within the well-definied limits spelled out in 17 USC 107 through 122.

I can assure you, there's nothing in there which would give you permission to make a verbatim duplication of 99% of a copyrighted work, make a few changes to the final 1%, and then resell the result without obtaining the original author's permission, no matter how much credit you offer.

that's copyright and the modifier is protected (and that only counts federally...state laws may differ and state power trumps federal at least in theory according to the constitution)

The Constitution also specifically delegates power to regulate copyright to the federal, rather than state, government.

Selling items second hand is at issue too otherwise vendors would be forced to pay royalties on literature sold at second hand book stores and garage sales everything that is resold no matter how many times would generate billions in royalties to the original creators.

Selling items second-hand is covered by the First Sale Doctrine. That was originally a notion outside the codified law that was created by the courts, but it was subsequently codified into law. It's in 17 USC 109, in case you're interested to read up on it.

Anyway, this is all talking about Apple's claim of copyright over its software, which is totally different from a patent.

 

[scootaru]

So would the OP who sold his jailbreaking services be on the hook for copyright infringement or the Dev Team if their software was used?

 

[goosnarrggh]

So would the OP who sold his jailbreaking services be on the hook for copyright infringement or the Dev Team if their software was used?

If you use the precedent set by the Napster case, all three parties could be on the hook - the Dev Team who made the hack, the service provider who applied the hack, and the individual user availing himself of the services.

 

[BaldiMac]

Charging for your time and effort is not illegal. Charging for free software is different. But think of it like charging for computer repair services. Or like cutting someones grass. U get paid for your time. And no jailbreaking is not illegal no matter what anyone says.

In the US, jailbreaking is currently a violation of the DMCA. Therefore, illegal. The EFF is fighting for an exemption to the DMCA to expressly allow jailbreaking.

As much as that law sucks, it is still a law.

 

[Applejuiced]

A violation that is not punishable or ever enforcible.
Love all the lawyer wannabe posters making it sound like a big deal. Where in reality noone ever got even close to getting in trouble in the past 3 years and IMO they won't. There's stores at malls and various places that perform these services to the public openly and with no problems whatsover.

In the US, jailbreaking is currently a violation of the DMCA. Therefore, illegal. The EFF is fighting for an exemption to the DMCA to expressly allow jailbreaking.

As much as that law sucks, it is still a law.

 

[BaldiMac]

A violation that is not punishable or ever enforcible.
Love all the lawyer wannabe posters making it sound like a big deal. Where in reality noone ever got even close to getting in trouble in the past 3 years and IMO they won't. There's stores at malls and various places that perform these services to the public openly and with no problems whatsover.

I never claimed it was a big deal. The question was "Is it illegal?". The answer is most likely "Yes." It's also illegal to throw a lizard at someone in Ohio. The fact that nobody cares doesn't make it any less illegal.

 

[cmaier]

A violation that is not punishable or ever enforcible.
Love all the lawyer wannabe posters making it sound like a big deal. Where in reality noone ever got even close to getting in trouble in the past 3 years and IMO they won't. There's stores at malls and various places that perform these services to the public openly and with no problems whatsover.

There's a difference between "punishable/enforceable" and "punished/enforced." Just because copyright holders haven't gone all sue-happy yet doesn't mean they won't.

What stores provide jailbreaking? I've heard of unlocking kiosks and such, but not jailbreaking.

p.s.: I suspect that at least two posters are not "lawyer wannabes" but are actual lawyers.

 

[Ttownbeast]

Constitution: Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

state laws trump federal laws as granted by this amendment.

 

[Pika]

No.

Jailbreaking breaks your warranty.

If you damage your iPhone, Apple won’t fix it. Some of my friends have damaged their jailed iPhones and gotten full replacements! This is not a possibility for someone with a jailbroken iPhone. Apple will just say, “The reason it’s not working is because you hacked it.” Hacking your iPhone is not sanctioned by Apple, so whatever you do is at your own risk.

There’s always a possibility of something bad happening.

Even Zibri says, “ZiPhone has worked reliably for many iPhone users, but occasionally things do go wrong.” If this happens, you could be left with a iPhone that is unable to restore. This happens because something in your iPhone so so corrupt that either iTunes cannot read your it or pressing restore just won’t work. Also, you have to be really careful when new firmware comes out. If you upgrade… It’s dead.

The apps are not that great.

A majority of the iPhone apps on installer are absolute pointless. Also, people make a lot of apps just to prove the point that it is possible, but actually do nothing helpful for the user. I have two examples. I downloaded this one apps called cowbell… You tap on it and it makes a cowbell noise, this is self explanatory. There is also an app that lets your record videos, but only 5 seconds long. Then, the only way to get it onto your computer it to SSH into your iPhone. Trust me there are a lot more apps that do nothing helpful than apps that cool or help you get things done.

Your iPhone works fine as it is.

You love your iPhone and it already does everything you want it to. You just have to live for 4 months, knowing it can do so much more. It’s a great iPod, a great phone and a great internet communicator. Why should you jeopardize that?

The iPhone SDK looks amazing, and it’s coming in 4 months.

We already saw the power of what companies could do in 2 weeks with the SDK. There is nothing like those apps in installer. No Touch Fighter, no Super Mokey Ball, no Spore. Come June, you will have all of that. It’s worth the wait.

 

[cmaier]

Constitution: Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

state laws trump federal laws as granted by this amendment.

Sigh. First, the 10th amendment has never been found by the Supreme Court to grant anything to the states (one example to the contrary IIRC).

Secondly, and more importantly, the Constitution DOES delegate to the United States the power to grant patents and copyright. Article I Section 8. Thus copyright and patents are NOT reserved to the states. State laws do NOT trump federal copyright or patent laws, which is why there are no state copyright or patent laws. For example, all patent cases are heard by United States District Courts (i.e.: federal judges) and not by state courts. All patent appeals are heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - not even by the federal circuit courts in the various states.

You really need to either go to law school or stop pretending you know what you are talking about.

 

[Ttownbeast]

There's a difference between "punishable/enforceable" and "punished/enforced." Just because copyright holders haven't gone all sue-happy yet doesn't mean they won't.

What stores provide jailbreaking? I've heard of unlocking kiosks and such, but not jailbreaking.

p.s.: I suspect that at least two posters are not "lawyer wannabes" but are actual lawyers.

Agreed it doesn't mean they won't but it doesn't necessarily mean they would win the lawsuit either, civil matters are not matters about what activity is legal or illegal under social contract and considered criminal offenses but about private business and personal agreements when the government is brought in to arbitrate the issue it could go either way if no laws which could be considered criminal are violated.

 

[Ttownbeast]

Sigh. First, the 10th amendment has never been found by the Supreme Court to grant anything to the states (one example to the contrary IIRC).

Secondly, and more importantly, the Constitution DOES delegate to the United States the power to grant patents and copyright. Article I Section 8. Thus copyright and patents are NOT reserved to the states. State laws do NOT trump federal copyright or patent laws, which is why there are no state copyright or patent laws. For example, all patent cases are heard by United States District Courts (i.e.: federal judges) and not by state courts. All patent appeals are heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - not even by the federal circuit courts in the various states.

You really need to either go to law school or stop pretending you know what you are talking about.

OK let's take a look at this one
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;
I'll stop it here rather than post the entire thing
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;


Your patent AND copyright law from section 8 nowhere do I see anything in it that says the states cannot further define the rule nothing here nor is there anything that says another party cannot file for a patent on a similar device or use a different approach leading to a similar result.

 

[cmaier]

OK let's take a look at this one
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;
I'll stop it here rather than post the entire thing
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;


Your patent AND copyright law from section 8 nowhere do I see anything in it that says the states cannot further define the rule nothing here nor is there anything that says another party cannot file for a patent on a similar device or use a different approach leading to a similar result.

Sigh. Look, you yourself pointed to the tenth amendment. The states get whatever is NOT given to the federal gov't. Art I Sec 8 gives copyright and patents to the federal gov't. It doesn't have to say "and the states cannot do it." You can't point to a single state law on copyright or patents, because there are none. For example:

28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) creates exclusive federal jurisdiction for patent, trademark and copyright cases ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks. Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive of the courts of the states in patent, plant variety protection and copyright cases.")

"EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION" is legalese for "only the federal courts can hear these actions.

Again, go read a book on constitutional law, at least, before you babble on. I can recommend a couple of good ones.

P.s.: I don't understand your last sentence. Did someone say you couldn't patent something similar to something else? Because you can. It just has to be something new and novel and nonobvious. Doesn't matter if it produces the same result if it does so in a new/novel way.

 

[Applejuiced]

I saw many at malls and other shopping places usually the same places that sell cellphone cases, clips and holsters. And obviously in order to unlock the iphone you need to jailbreak it.

There's a difference between "punishable/enforceable" and "punished/enforced." Just because copyright holders haven't gone all sue-happy yet doesn't mean they won't.

What stores provide jailbreaking? I've heard of unlocking kiosks and such, but not jailbreaking.

p.s.: I suspect that at least two posters are not "lawyer wannabes" but are actual lawyers.

 

[Applejuiced]

What? What is this post a year old or what?
The SDK is comming out in 4 months? Ziphone hasnt been around since the 1st iphone was released?

No.

Jailbreaking breaks your warranty.

If you damage your iPhone, Apple won’t fix it. Some of my friends have damaged their jailed iPhones and gotten full replacements! This is not a possibility for someone with a jailbroken iPhone. Apple will just say, “The reason it’s not working is because you hacked it.” Hacking your iPhone is not sanctioned by Apple, so whatever you do is at your own risk.

There’s always a possibility of something bad happening.

Even Zibri says, “ZiPhone has worked reliably for many iPhone users, but occasionally things do go wrong.” If this happens, you could be left with a iPhone that is unable to restore. This happens because something in your iPhone so so corrupt that either iTunes cannot read your it or pressing restore just won’t work. Also, you have to be really careful when new firmware comes out. If you upgrade… It’s dead.

The apps are not that great.

A majority of the iPhone apps on installer are absolute pointless. Also, people make a lot of apps just to prove the point that it is possible, but actually do nothing helpful for the user. I have two examples. I downloaded this one apps called cowbell… You tap on it and it makes a cowbell noise, this is self explanatory. There is also an app that lets your record videos, but only 5 seconds long. Then, the only way to get it onto your computer it to SSH into your iPhone. Trust me there are a lot more apps that do nothing helpful than apps that cool or help you get things done.

Your iPhone works fine as it is.

You love your iPhone and it already does everything you want it to. You just have to live for 4 months, knowing it can do so much more. It’s a great iPod, a great phone and a great internet communicator. Why should you jeopardize that?

The iPhone SDK looks amazing, and it’s coming in 4 months.

We already saw the power of what companies could do in 2 weeks with the SDK. There is nothing like those apps in installer. No Touch Fighter, no Super Mokey Ball, no Spore. Come June, you will have all of that. It’s worth the wait.

 

[cmaier]

I saw many at malls and other shopping places usually the same places that sell cellphone cases, clips and holsters. And obviously in order to unlock the iphone you need to jailbreak it.

Yeah, didn't know anyone was doing unlocks with iPhones. Unlocks is an interesting case, because it's an enumerated (and temporary) DMCA exception.