New law = less time to iPhone 4 jb?

[diabolic]

This new law just means Apple can't press charges against you for jailbreaking. Apple is still saying it VOIDS your warranty.

It's now legal to do something that nobody has ever been in trouble for?

And it's definitely still illegal to install paid apps for free after jailbreaking a phone.

I don't see how the ruling is going to make any difference in any practical sense. Apple will still make it difficult to jailbreak the phone.

 

[thelatinist]

rotobadger:

I would respectfully ask that you read the relevant section of the United States Code. USC: 17 § 1201 (a) (1) (A) makes it illegal to "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." It is true that there are fair use exceptions to this section, but these exceptions are limited to only those established by the Librarian of Congress. Until and unless the Librarian of Congress promulgates a rule creating an exception, such actions are illegal. This does not, as you state, apply to those who create or distribute tools to facilitate such activities; that is a completely different paragraph. This is a prohibition on individuals' actions to circumvent access controls.

Please understand that I do not approve of the DMCA, which makes it illegal to circumvent access controls in many cases even when the content accessed would otherwise be subject to fair use exceptions. But I am intellectually honest enough to recognize that that is precisely what it does. You may have a right to make a personal backup of an encrypted DVD, but until and unless the Librarian of Congress creates an exception to cover this fair use, it is illegal for you to circumvent the DVD's encryption in order to do so.

 

[rotobadger]

rotobadger:

I would respectfully ask that you read the relevant section of the United States Code. USC: 17 § 1201 (a) (1) (A) makes it illegal to "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." It is true that there are fair use exceptions to this section, but these exceptions are limited to only those established by the Librarian of Congress. Until and unless the Librarian of Congress promulgates a rule creating an exception, such actions are illegal. This does not, as you state, apply to those who create or distribute tools to facilitate such activities; that is a completely different paragraph. This is a prohibition on individuals' actions to circumvent access controls.

Please understand that I do not approve of the DMCA, which makes it illegal to circumvent access controls in many cases even when the content accessed would otherwise be subject to fair use exceptions. But I am intellectually honest enough to recognize that that is precisely what it does. You may have a right to make a personal backup of an encrypted DVD, but until and unless the Librarian of Congress creates an exception to cover this fair use, it is illegal for you to circumvent the DVD's encryption in order to do so.

You posted just as I finished editing my earlier post!

Point taken. I went back and read a little more carefully the pertinent DCMA rules that apply here. I also skimmed the above referenced code. You are correct.

I misunderstood as well. I was referring to simply the copying of the DVDs rather than breaking encryption in order to facilitate.

As I stated in my now edited post, I see more clearly what you were getting at.

Apologies.

 

[thelatinist]

Apologies.

Apology accepted. I would, however, suggest that in the future you avoid playing the "I have extensive experience in this kind of litigation" card unless you understand the legal issues at least as well as a high school Latin teacher.

 

[rotobadger]

Apology accepted. I would, however, suggest that in the future you avoid playing the "I have extensive experience in this kind of litigation" card unless you understand the legal issues at least as well as a high school Latin teacher.

Wow. I apologize and state, unequivocally that you are right and I am wrong and receive a snide comment in return.

You sir, are a gentleman.

 

[Consultant]

It was never illegal. From what I've read, this simply indicates that Apple's attempts to make it illegal have failed. They can still close security holes taken advantage of by jailbreaking apps. In, short, I don't think this really makes any difference to the user.

Yes, it won't make any difference, but the other stuff you believe are just plain wrong.

Apple did not write the DMCA.

Apple did not try to make it illegal.

FYI Apple fought for DRM free music.

Just because the government says it's ok doesn't mean that apple isn't going to try to prevent it. just means they have less grounds if they ever decided to go after dev-team or jailbreakers. even still apple can challenge it.

Apple has not gone after the jailbreak community in 3 years and probably never will.

FYI, it's not hard to track down fewer than 10 people who are responsible for the jailbreaks.

 

[charuzzi]

Is this an iPhone forum or Legal debate forum????

 

[Blorzoga]

Why didn't you post your question in the previously made thread for this topic???

I wish there was a way to report a "repost" so that MODs could merge the threads.

Here's an idea: why not let the moderators do the moderating and non-moderators do the posting and responding.

 

[dhlizard]

Is this an iPhone forum or Legal debate forum????

This legal/illegal jailbreaking argument has been argued to death in several other threads with no consensus of opinion.

Now we have a new standard and it's still being argued to death and still no consensus of opinion.

 

[spamdumpster]

This legal/illegal jailbreaking argument has been argued to death in several other threads with no consensus of opinion.

Now we have a new standard and it's still being argued to death and still no consensus of opinion.

This is exactly how the legal system works in the US. Awesome, isn't it?

 

[dhlizard]

This is exactly how the legal system works in the US. Awesome, isn't it?

Can't argue with that !

 

[The Phazer]

Just wondering, since it's not illegal will there be more professional developers helping to get the jb working? And possibly way more apps for cydia?

No, given the change does not apply to the existing law stating that you can't market or traffic in tools whose primary purpose is to let people hack and the exceptions are not permitted to be applied to that provision.

In other words, the new allowance allows you to hack the iPhone yourself to jailbreak it. It does not allow you to distribute a tool to other people to do it themselves however.

If anything, the prospects for a commercially minded jailbreak developer got bleaker.

Phazer

 

[a042349]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this ruling but...

...doesn't this legal ruling mean it would be possible to commercialize jailbreaking and alternative app repositories?

So some company comes along, hires Saurik, Comex and Musclenerd (making this all up obviously) and offers iPhone Jailbreaks for say $39.95 per unit. Along with that you get some level of support and of course the new improved "SuperCydia" where you can download free and paid apps (legal, non-pirated apps) that are not available in the Apple app store. SBSettings for $3.99, Winterboard for $2.99, really cool themes are $0.99, etc...

No Apple proprietary software, no illegal/cracked apps, obviously there would be restrictions as to which firmware/devices they could support, and some sort of "legal out" should Apple say find a way to lock them out with either their latest firmware and/or some other "Apple magic" to break their tools (to cover them if anything new crops up). For instance think "RockApps" wouldn't be on board as a "partner" in this venture?

I would pay that fee for a tool like that.

I know today we only have a few known folks that can/do provide jailbreaks - but it's never been legal to do so before. I imagine there are many people that could figure out jailbreaks but before this ruling it wasn't certain if it would be legal, so many never bothered to try, never mind get funding from some sort of commercial venture to do it professionally.

Obviously I'm no lawyer (and not even a HS Latin teacher) but it seems to me the big news from this ruling is you can now feel better about taking the risk to invest money (with the hope of making much more) in the world of jailbreaking because Apple can't legally shut you down.

Just the sheer number of iPhones out there seems to me there would be a market for this kind of thing - 1-3% of all iPhones is still a damn lot of customers, and with word of mouth and internet buzz, I bet you'd get a lot more than that over time.

Just a thought...and again, maybe I'm misunderstanding the ruling, and/or very likely don't appreciate the risks of doing something like this commercially in direct opposition to the manufacturer of your product's lifeblood.

EDIT: Just read "Phazers" take on this topic, and if he's correct, then not being able to "sell" these tools obviously makes my post moot.

 

[cobra5mil]

I think we can all agree that there will always be people who try to hack or alter software beyond its intent and there will always be people who want to stop them.

/thread

 

[labman]

Yes, it won't make any difference, but the other stuff you believe are just plain wrong.

Apple did not write the DMCA.

Apple did not try to make it illegal.

FYI Apple fought for DRM free music.




Apple has not gone after the jailbreak community in 3 years and probably never will.

FYI, it's not hard to track down fewer than 10 people who are responsible for the jailbreaks.

I agree!