U.S. Government to Explicitly Allow iPhone Jailbreaking

[cmaier]

i would agree that this does allow for more consumer freedom (great!), but err, doesn't this new law make it illegal for apple to deny service (aka warranty) to jailbroken phones (re-read the article)? in that case, the government IS meddling with private business and its ability to market and sell a product under its own policies.

No, the law does not make it illegal for apple to deny service to jailbroken phones.

So you're saying this law makes jalbreaking legal, yet Apple can still claim it voids the warranty? That doesn't make any sense. It should not void any warranty other than servicing the software side of the phone. It should not prevent customers from getting service for physical defects/issues if they jailbreak the phone.

The ruling today changes nothing. To the extent apple could deny service to jailbroken phones before, they still can. All that has happened is the government says they won't fine you or throw you in jail for jailbreaking.

The reason I phrase it that way is that there are laws in many jurisdictions that prevent denial of warranty service for modifications made to the device that don't result in the damage.

 

[thelatinist]

It's always been legal. It's just a breach of the SLA. In other words, they can void your warranty if you jailbreak.

This part has always been there. It's always been legal to reprogram your phone to unlock it. This doesn't mean any carrier has to be cooperative.

Actually, the DMCA has long made it illegal to circumvent the kind of controls removed by jailbreaks. There has been an exception for jailbreaking only to effect a carrier unlock. Jailbreaking to allow the installation of unapproved third-party apps remained illegal. Basically, this decision makes it legal under the DMCA to circumvent encryption to jailbreak phones for reasons other than effecting a carrier unlock. It's great news, even if it doesn't change anything practically.

 

[asrai]

in a free country the government shouldn't be telling people how to live or how to operate their businesses.

You said it!!!! This is just yet another place where the government has no place sticking their nose.

 

[giosaccone]

Would this only apply to the US do you think?

Interesting question......................

 

[Beric]

iPod touch jailbreaker here. Good to hear.

 

[KaneBaker]

I jailbreak, though I don't mind Apple's policy—to an extent. This isn't a job for the government.

Of course it is. It's a legal matter. Now it's clear that no laws are broken. This is the government doing what it is supposed to be doing. In a way this is the government staying out of the issue by not protecting apples methods with the law.

 

[Becordial]

Just because something is good for the consumer doesn't make it a good ruling. The courts will sort this out.

Things that are good for the consumer are almost always the right outcome.

Doing what the public is asking for is not inconsistent with the wishes of most companies and governments too, as long as those interests don't ruin the company or government in the process.

Places like AT&T and others should listening more clearly sometimes and will realise that 'doing what customers said they wanted' is often great for their business too.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Yes.

If not, whose is it? Not ATT, if you are out of contract.
Not Apple after one or two years, when you are out of warranty.

Btw the 2g iPhone has reportedly been "EOL'ed" by Apple so....

Thats how it works though. Its very smart. You sign a 2 year contract so basically you are in a contract and than the device gets EOL'd. Its smart. I'm not knocking Apple for doing either. I would rather be told up front what I am really getting.

 

[Shanpdx]

What is legal?

ATT requires for my iPhone 3G (after two year contract) to have mandatory iPhone data plan for to use in their network.

and i cannot use it in T-mobile because of locked to ATT.

is it legal?

 

[arian19]

everyone here who is guessing things, needs to read like 10 paragraphs of this law to see what it is really saying....

for example this is part of the statement... read this

The Register appreciates that many regulatory and policy issues pertaining to jailbreaking and smartphones fall within the competence of other agencies, and the Register has no desire to interfere with those agencies; jurisdiction. However, the only question before the Register and the Librarian is whether Section 1201(a)(1)'s prohibition on circumvention is adversely affecting the ability of users of smartphones from engaging in noninfringing uses of the firmware on their devices. No other agency has the power to limit the application of the prohibition on circumvention in this (or any other) context. Any future action by a federal agency to permit jailbreaking will be futile without an exemption from liability under Section 1201(a)(1), but if a class is not designated in this rulemaking, all that it will mean is that Section 1201 cannot be used to prevent jailbreaking, without prejudice to any other legal or regulatory authority that might limit or prohibit jailbreaking.

and if you are retarded and can't understand that, i'll put the line that you need to read

Any future action by a federal agency to permit jailbreaking will be futile without an exemption from liability under Section 1201(a)(1), but if a class is not designated in this rulemaking, all that it will mean is that Section 1201 cannot be used to prevent jailbreaking, without prejudice to any other legal or regulatory authority that might limit or prohibit jailbreaking.

 

[doctapeppa]

So now can the dev-team charge for a jailbreak?

 

[SkippyThorson]

Yes.

If not, whose is it? Not ATT, if you are out of contract.
Not Apple after one or two years, when you are out of warranty.

I agree with the "it's yours" argument you have, because it is. It's always yours. You buy the phone, and no matter what you do after you've paid the initial price of owning the device, it is yours.

HOWEVER. You purchase the iPhone and thereby agree to the terms and conditions that Apple has set up for the device, and the contract terms set up by AT&T. At the conclusion of the 2 year AT&T contract, you have fulfilled requirement, and can do whatever you want with it in regards to using it as a cell phone, iPod Touch, coaster, frisbee, etc...

The terms and conditions set by Apple do not expire. Your warranty expires, and you are out of luck in terms of free service, sure, but you can pay for repairs. If you run over your iPhone with a Peterbuilt, and Apple denies repair services, that's because YOU agreed to buy that iPhone and YOU agreed to their terms which exclude service damage by the fault of the user.

ERGO. It's still yours, absolutely - it's also your responsibility. Can't deal? Oh well. That's it. It's yours. Your responsibility. If you want to jailbreak it, no one or nothing is stopping you. Just don't expect help from those that don't think like you.

(Again, not you directly, you indirectly.)

 

[Shanpdx]

iPhone 2G/3G

should be unlocked straightway since the original owner bought with two year contract OR paid the full price.

by asking these older iPhones (two year or older) to have mandatory iPhone data plan does not sound nice ...

Who is making money? is it you or ATT?

 

[ksgant]

Say hello to viruses and malware.

Thanks Government. I will keep my money, I will keep my un-jailbroken phone, you can keep the change.

Nothing is stopping you from NOT jailbreaking your phone, this doesn't mean that Apple has to start shipping jailbroken iPhones...and this also doesn't mean that Apple has to allow stuff on it's App store either. It will be business-as-usual for everyone out there that doesn't jailbreak their phone. All this means is now it's not "illegal" under the DMCA to jailbreak it. That's it.

I honestly don't see any impact on this at all.

 

[Shanpdx]

So now can the dev-team charge for a jailbreak?

probably and may support the jailbreak also... now everything is under the radar...

 

[legacyb4]

Agreed; it's okay to jailbreak to move your phone from carrier to carrier, but it's not okay to decrypt media to move from one player to another?

Oh wait, we don't actually own our music, do we?

Wait... this is the same government that doesn't allow you to circumvent digital copyright protection schema under 17 USC 12 (a.k.a. DMCA)?

So jailbreaking Apple's stuff is ok. Jailbreaking the recording and motion picture industry's stuff not ok.

Got it. Clear as mud.



P.S. I'm not endorsing piracy. I'm against piracy. I just find the contradiction a bit baffling.

 

[Becordial]

No, the law does not make it illegal for apple to deny service to jailbroken phones.





The ruling today changes nothing. To the extent apple could deny service to jailbroken phones before, they still can. All that has happened is the government says they won't fine you or throw you in jail for jailbreaking.

The reason I phrase it that way is that there are laws in many jurisdictions that prevent denial of warranty service for modifications made to the device that don't result in the damage.

There's also the fact that warranties are always subject to the law designed to protect consumers. If the law frowns on imposing such restraints, it cuts off the terms of the warranty that might seek to limit consumers protection under the law. Will we see the jailbreaking issue mentioned in revised warranty terms? That will be interesting.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

The Malware and Virus argument I don't buy. Just like on a PC if a company gives you the ability to make decisions on what to download, make sure you are making an informed decisions. Windows 75% of the time isn't the issue... its the person using it.

 

[hitekalex]

+1

anybody who's saying that this whole thing is good, they really dont like apple's way of marketing to begin with

And your point is what? Are you saying that NOT being a corporate slave to Apple and Steve Jobs' ways is somehow a negative?

 

[Shanpdx]

The Malware and Virus argument I don't buy. Just like on a PC if a company gives you the ability to make decisions on what to download, make sure you are making an informed decisions. Windows 75% of the time isn't the issue... its the person using it.

+1, most of us here are for UNlocking not much of jailbreaking ...

right now you gotta jailbreak to unlock the iPhone(s)

 

[calvin2006]

I wish the government would leave Apple alone. When it comes to government, less is more.

 

[Don Kosak]

I think that to the general consumer, this will have a negative effect. It opens the door to even more wide spread app stealing and piracy.

If you're a individual software developer that needs to put food on the table, or a big company deciding to make a big bet on iOS -- this just made the platform a whole lot riskier to build for.

If jail breakers become more brazen because of this ruling, and jail breaking becomes more wide spread, companies/developers will be forced to look elsewhere for revenue.

 

[SansArc]

What's changed exactly? I had no idea jailbreaking was illegal. So now people can "officially" jailbreak? Is this supposed to force Apple to support jailbroken devices? Cause I don't even see how that will happen. If you had a problem anyway, wouldn't you just restore it before you took it into service. Now if the government body didn't waste their time and our tax dollars. They could have worked on making it illegal for locking phones to carriers. I just don't see why the government needed to get involved with something people already did. And if the iPhone is too closed for you, then why choose to buy it?

 

[SkippyThorson]

everyone here who is guessing things, needs to read like 10 paragraphs of this law to see what it is really saying....

for example this is part of the statement... read this

The Register appreciates that many regulatory and policy issues pertaining to jailbreaking and smartphones fall within the competence of other agencies, and the Register has no desire to interfere with those agencies; jurisdiction. However, the only question before the Register and the Librarian is whether Section 1201(a)(1)'s prohibition on circumvention is adversely affecting the ability of users of smartphones from engaging in noninfringing uses of the firmware on their devices. No other agency has the power to limit the application of the prohibition on circumvention in this (or any other) context. Any future action by a federal agency to permit jailbreaking will be futile without an exemption from liability under Section 1201(a)(1), but if a class is not designated in this rulemaking, all that it will mean is that Section 1201 cannot be used to prevent jailbreaking, without prejudice to any other legal or regulatory authority that might limit or prohibit jailbreaking.

That doesn't have any say against my argument. It's saying that while it is not meant to prevent jailbreaking, it is meant to stop those who ARE against it from preventing it themselves, thus making their stance on it indifferent.

For instance:
In the current situation, Apple is against jailbreaking, and if they find you have jailbroken your device, they can deny service in regards to voiding their terms.
In the new proposed situation, you've posted there, Apple can now not deny service to those who have jailbroken their devices. The user owns the phone, and can do what they want, and Apple can not say no to the user.

The problem with this is, Apple has set up a environment where they can control the quality of the product after it has left the hands of any Apple employee, and entered the hands of the user. If the user takes that product home, and jailbreaking - some third party's work - screws up that user's product, why should Apple help the user, when the third party is to blame, and neither Apple or the third party can affect one another? The only contact the user and the third party has, is through the product, when one or the other directly affect it in any way. A vs C via B / C vs A via B.

And your point is what? Are you saying that NOT being a corporate slave to Apple and Steve Jobs' ways is somehow a negative?

Your shackled sad iPhone avatar clearly advertises your stance on the issue, your advertising lack of concern for those who think differently than you (no pun intended), and that you are one of the people that all of my posts have been pointing at.

 

[cmaier]

I wish the government would leave Apple alone. When it comes to government, less is more.

That's poorly thought out nonsense. The government today announced that it would NOT APPLY RESTRICTIONS ON FREE ACTION to millions of people. It made an exception in a law that otherwise prevents millions of consumers from doing what they want to do.

The rule does NOT hamstring apple in any way. Apple is free to make whatever licensing restrictions it wants. the government has only said it won't throw you in jail for jailbreaking.

This is less government, not more.