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.
Jailbreaking = Software Piracy?
- Thread starter hugodrax
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Who in this thread has said that jailbreaking is piracy?
Is that supposed to be funny?
Jailbreaking is not piracy but you've clearly implied several times that installing any type of application or tweak from Cydia is pirating so are you seriously suggesting that the only way a jailbreak is legal is if we just jailbreak and then leave as is without installing anything?
You can jailbreak without being a "pirate" (stealing apps without paying for them and installing them on your phone) but you can't "pirate" (stealing apps without paying for them and installing them on your phone) WITHOUT jailbreaking. Jailbreaking does not equal "piracy," but "piracy" requires jailbreaking.
If you use apps that are for sale and you haven't paid for them, you are "pirating." Uh, stealing, right? Your moms all told you that was bad.
If you have a jailbroken phone and you use free apps from Cydia or buy apps from Cydia, or you do GUI mods to make the phone look cool, you are not a "pirate." You have stolen nothing, and your mom would be proud of you. You are legal, as jailbreaking is legal.
Look at it this way: if you steal, you are a thief. If you don't steal, you are not a thief. How can there be any discussion about this? It's basic. Steal=thief. Don't steal=not thief.
If you use apps that are for sale and you haven't paid for them, you are "pirating." Uh, stealing, right? Your moms all told you that was bad.
If you have a jailbroken phone and you use free apps from Cydia or buy apps from Cydia, or you do GUI mods to make the phone look cool, you are not a "pirate." You have stolen nothing, and your mom would be proud of you. You are legal, as jailbreaking is legal.
Look at it this way: if you steal, you are a thief. If you don't steal, you are not a thief. How can there be any discussion about this? It's basic. Steal=thief. Don't steal=not thief.
No, I've specifically said that jailbreaking itself is likely legal and that installing an app that is otherwise compatible and lawfully obtained is legal. See all the articles linked in this thread to the exemption to the DMCA created by the Library of Congress. Except don't just read the headlines, read the actual exemption itself. (Also, a separate DMCA exception was made for unlocking.)
What I am saying is probably illegal and constitutes piracy is installing an app or "tweak" that modifies the OS to provide functionality that is not available to standard apps.
I agree with everything you said except this statement about GUI mods. What gives you the right to modify Apple's software without their permission?
I can mod my phone the same way I can mod my car. Especially according to current rulings. Whatever Apple may say, I OWN my phone. If I want to paint it red and make the statubar say "I Hate Apple" I can do so. Apple does not have the right to sell me something and then tell me I can't customize it. It can say it will void the warranty, but that's about it.
Oh, and 'Regulators agreed, declaring Monday that the activity of an iPhone owner who modifies his or her iPhones firmware/operating system in order to make it interoperable with an application that Apple has not approved, but that the iPhone owner wishes to run on the iPhone, fits comfortably within the four corners of fair use.' While Apple may say we can't change how things work, we can.
I happen to own Apple stock, so I really DO like Apple. But modifying my device makes me happy, and making it look different from, say, yours makes me happy. Making mine sound different from yours makes me happy. Legally, I am well within my rights.
Oh, and 'Regulators agreed, declaring Monday that the activity of an iPhone owner who modifies his or her iPhones firmware/operating system in order to make it interoperable with an application that Apple has not approved, but that the iPhone owner wishes to run on the iPhone, fits comfortably within the four corners of fair use.' While Apple may say we can't change how things work, we can.
I happen to own Apple stock, so I really DO like Apple. But modifying my device makes me happy, and making it look different from, say, yours makes me happy. Making mine sound different from yours makes me happy. Legally, I am well within my rights.
The fact that I paid ~$700 for a device, no one's ever going to see my phone/tweaks, and Apple isn't losing any money from what I'm doing.
In addition to this, I know people that have bought iDevices simply for the jailbreak experience. So in essence, Apple could be gaining money from the whole concept of jailbreaking.
My ipad2 n iphone 4 are both jailbroken, i also dont hide that i have on both of my deviced installous! But the meaning of jb is to make your device to b mor function..
Why should i must tap settings , general ,brightnes to adjust it or settings bla bla wifi on to turn on my wifi? i have sbsettings 4 that
The same goes with folderenhancer bitesms and so on! but thats not piracy bs i pay for theese apps.
Most people who read on forums dont pirate, the people who do it are mostly people who buy iphones to be cool n they saw somebody with a jbroken phone so they do the same.. But they dont spend anytime on cydia to make the device better but only installous.. thats s shame !
Cydia is not piracy
Why should i must tap settings , general ,brightnes to adjust it or settings bla bla wifi on to turn on my wifi? i have sbsettings 4 that
The same goes with folderenhancer bitesms and so on! but thats not piracy bs i pay for theese apps.
Most people who read on forums dont pirate, the people who do it are mostly people who buy iphones to be cool n they saw somebody with a jbroken phone so they do the same.. But they dont spend anytime on cydia to make the device better but only installous.. thats s shame !
Cydia is not piracy
When I go into an Apple Store, I SHOW them my phone. I've got nothing to hide. It's my phone. I can legally do what I want with it, and if a piece of hardware that I didn't modify breaks (under warranty), they have an obligation to fix it. If I mess with the software and it breaks, my issue. I can put bigger wheels and tires on my car and if it messes up the suspension it is my fault. I can overclock my iMac and if the HD fails, my fault. I take the responsibility for what I do. But to tell me I can't put a transparent status bar on my phone, or replace the ugly slider with a tap to unlock theme, buzz off. They don't have that right. If I mess up my phone, they can try to refuse to fix it (by saying my mods led to the failure). But they have no legal right to say I can't do it. And if a port breaks, it's pretty clear that's a hardware issue that they need to fix. A GUI mod does not cause hardware failure.
I look at Apple's statement of use (you buy it, but we still control it) as legal crap. If you go to a ball game, your ticket says you relinquish all legal rights to your safety if hurt. BS. If you park you car in a car lot downtown, the ticket they give you says they are not responsible for theft or damage. BS. That's why we can hire lawyers, who poke holes in those arguments. Apple can say it, but it has no legal bearing.
So when someone says I can't change the way my phone looks or sounds, I know it's got no legal bearing. A phone is not sacrosanct. It's a phone, a piece of merchandise. I buy it, it's mine. If I personalize it, I am within my rights to do so.
I look at Apple's statement of use (you buy it, but we still control it) as legal crap. If you go to a ball game, your ticket says you relinquish all legal rights to your safety if hurt. BS. If you park you car in a car lot downtown, the ticket they give you says they are not responsible for theft or damage. BS. That's why we can hire lawyers, who poke holes in those arguments. Apple can say it, but it has no legal bearing.
So when someone says I can't change the way my phone looks or sounds, I know it's got no legal bearing. A phone is not sacrosanct. It's a phone, a piece of merchandise. I buy it, it's mine. If I personalize it, I am within my rights to do so.
Modding your car does not fall under copyright law, so your analogy isn't appropriate.
Can you not understand the difference between modifying iOS "in order to make it interoperable with an application that Apple has not approved", and modifying it for whatever reason you want?
The fact that I paid ~$700 for a device, no one's ever going to see my phone/tweaks, and Apple isn't losing any money from what I'm doing.
In addition to this, I know people that have bought iDevices simply for the jailbreak experience. So in essence, Apple could be gaining money from the whole concept of jailbreaking.
That's not a right, it's a rationalization.
Apple has exclusive rights to create derivative works from iOS subject to specific limitations. Here is the law:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106
You keep talking about legal rights and legal bearing. Please show me any limitation to their exclusive rights that would allow you to modify their software any way you would like for any reason you' would like. Otherwise, you are a just wishing that the law fit what you want to do.
Yes, they do...in regards to distribution and redistribution
Modding one's personal phone for personal use with no intent to distributing is fine
As I stated previously, I can edit my own copy of any book I own with any of my modifications for personal use. Same applies to other works.
Your argument would hold if those that were modding their os were then redistributing that modded os without permission from Apple. They are not
Regardless, this back and forth debate is getting quite stale and is deviating from the thread. After all it is meaningless if even f you were coreect, it doesn't matter. Why? Because Apple will not come after you due to the resources involved greatly outweigh the benefits
No. Read the law as I posted. The right to create derivative works is independent of distribution and reproduction rights.
Back to the real point of the thread, or at least the poll. At this point, we have 159 people that have responded to the poll that either can't read, picked the wrong answer purposefully, or are not aware of the reality that there are people that jailbreak so they can get apps for free. 75% got the answer wrong. Amazing.
No. Read the law as I posted. The right to create derivative works is independent of distribution and reproduction rights.
Back to the real point of the thread, or at least the poll. At this point, we have 159 people that have responded to the poll that either can't read, picked the wrong answer purposefully, or are not aware of the reality that there are people that jailbreak so they can get apps for free. 75% got the answer wrong. Amazing.
From your link
I understand 1 and we are in agreement there
As per 2, what is meant by prepare? The knowledge I have is that the context for that is say I want to write more adventures of Harry Potter without the author's permission and then distribute that work.
However, to my understanding, that is not equivalent to me adding more pages to the book I own and writing those stories for my own use
Thus I understand it to be directly tied to distribution and redistribution of the original work (as that is the sole reason for copyright in the first place) as well as any work derived from such and not pertaining to derivatives to work for one's own personal use
Last edited:
I read your linked material re visual arts and I do not agree that it fits what we are talking about. We are going to have to disagree that the GUI of an iDevice is a work of art as set forth in the copyright law you cite, subject to the copyright law you link to. In addition, if you wish to split hairs,
(c) Exceptions. — (1) The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of the passage of time or the inherent nature of the materials is not a distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3)(A).
In addition, the copyright laws refer to unlawful reproduction, taking credit for another's work or altering said work to bring disrepute to its author. Changing the GUI of an iPhone does not, necessarily, do so. And if I choose, on my own, to alter a .PNG on my phone, with no intent or attempt to offer said change to others, for profit or not, it does not fall under said law. Even if I did, I believe that Andy Warhol, among other visual artists, has shown that altering a copyrighted image does not necessarily bring the copyright hounds of hell down on someone.
Apple has not taken anyone to court for jailbreaking or unlocking an iPhone (before the current ruling that doing so was legal or since) and shows no sign of preparing to do so now. Apple has never taken anyone to court who has changed the GUI of an Apple computer. Apple computers have been in existence far longer than iPhones and, it seems to me, Apple would have had plenty of time to do so if it wished.
For you to say that jailbreaking and unlocking are legal but changing the GUI is not is simply YOUR interpretation of what you feel the situation is at this time. It seems to me that you are as guilty as you feel I am in "wishing" that it were so.
Oh, and I can read perfectly well.
(c) Exceptions. — (1) The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of the passage of time or the inherent nature of the materials is not a distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3)(A).
In addition, the copyright laws refer to unlawful reproduction, taking credit for another's work or altering said work to bring disrepute to its author. Changing the GUI of an iPhone does not, necessarily, do so. And if I choose, on my own, to alter a .PNG on my phone, with no intent or attempt to offer said change to others, for profit or not, it does not fall under said law. Even if I did, I believe that Andy Warhol, among other visual artists, has shown that altering a copyrighted image does not necessarily bring the copyright hounds of hell down on someone.
Apple has not taken anyone to court for jailbreaking or unlocking an iPhone (before the current ruling that doing so was legal or since) and shows no sign of preparing to do so now. Apple has never taken anyone to court who has changed the GUI of an Apple computer. Apple computers have been in existence far longer than iPhones and, it seems to me, Apple would have had plenty of time to do so if it wished.
For you to say that jailbreaking and unlocking are legal but changing the GUI is not is simply YOUR interpretation of what you feel the situation is at this time. It seems to me that you are as guilty as you feel I am in "wishing" that it were so.
Oh, and I can read perfectly well.
No, distribution is a separate right.
"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;"
Can you cite any laws that provide a basis for your understanding?
I'm not sure why you are discussing 106A and I'm not sure how it applies. I linked to section 106.
It's pretty straightforward. I've linked to the law and the exceptions being discussed. Don't you find it curious that no one that disagrees with me has provided any sources?
Not at all. I've no problems with jailbreaking. I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I'm just here to have a discussion.
Did you vote "False" in the poll?
I didn't vote- it seemed silly.
My citing of the exception was to point out that, even though I think your argument is specious, if it were to the point there would still be an exception.
In addition, it seems that you will continue your total belief in the correctness of your argument and the rest of us will not be in agreement. Since that is the case, it seems useless to continue that portion of the "discussion."
If Apple, at some point in the future, takes someone to court for "GUI copyright infringement," then you can post a nice "I told you so." Otherwise, why don't we let that part of it drop, as it's getting us nowhere.
As to the actual topic, it seems clear that if you steal, you are a pirate. If you don't, you aren't.
My citing of the exception was to point out that, even though I think your argument is specious, if it were to the point there would still be an exception.
In addition, it seems that you will continue your total belief in the correctness of your argument and the rest of us will not be in agreement. Since that is the case, it seems useless to continue that portion of the "discussion."
If Apple, at some point in the future, takes someone to court for "GUI copyright infringement," then you can post a nice "I told you so." Otherwise, why don't we let that part of it drop, as it's getting us nowhere.
As to the actual topic, it seems clear that if you steal, you are a pirate. If you don't, you aren't.
Despite the fact that you consider the discussion useless, I will continue to post on topics I consider interesting.
As I said, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. It would even benefit me to be proven wrong.Why should I let Big Brother control an object that I own?
It's not a rationalization. It's my right, whether or not I have to take that right for my own. No one dictates what I do with my device. I'm not making any money off of what I do to my phone, nor does it provide any detriment to Apple. Everyone is happy, except you.
People have the right to vote however they want regardless of what is legal, what you agree with or what is correct. Stop wasting your time trying to sway people over to your point of view.
Agreed^
Or you just buy Apple stocks to make money, buying Apple stocks may not mean you like Apple. I am a microsoft user but in the future I may buy Apple stocks and sell them off for profit months/years down the road.
The fact that I paid ~$700 for a device, no one's ever going to see my phone/tweaks, and Apple isn't losing any money from what I'm doing.
In addition to this, I know people that have bought iDevices simply for the jailbreak experience. So in essence, Apple could be gaining money from the whole concept of jailbreaking.
Exactly, such an expensive device morally should give the owner the freedom to destroy the phone, jailbreak , pirate apps, etc.
Expensive products being inhibited by another source, NO WAY, As owners of expensive products, even if its illegal, one should be allowed to do ANYTHING on the device. Rooting, cracking, pirating, customizing all should be allowed.
Its similar to Politicians, they are not above the law but since they are politicians they get away with bribery, and other shady deals.
With iDevices being such an high class product, it is a shame that the whole device isn't used to its potential.
In all honesty i just think of JB as a "tweak" because .. it is. So if we go off the above quote saying its illegal to install a tweak to the OS that other standard apps do not have available then that means JB is illegal. No other app will have an app store. . apple will NEVER allow that within an app. When you JB you mod the OS to allow you to install Cydia which is basically another app store. Using those apps from the store tells iOS (or well the "jailbreak" does) that "YES" its ok to install this so the phone does. Other apps don't have this as well.
But if we all agree that jailbreaking (not tweakin the **** outta the phone) is legal ... and a judge did to ... then by going off the standard of "installing an app or "tweak" that modifies the OS to provide functionality that is not available to standard apps" would make jailbreaking illegal but.. It not. But if we go off that statement it should be illegal because I still can't install a app from the app store that will basically ... give me ANOTHER app store to run apps on apples device. Because they would never allow this.
Also if it was illegal apple would fight that they guarantee that its illegal to modify the OS but they can jailbreak (which ... why would you want cydia but nothing in cydia? doesnt make sense). Yet they tried and it was ruled legal. All apple says is...
websitesource said:
Source: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/
Idk thats just my 2 cents
Last edited: