Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
did anybody of you actually read what Heilage said? I guess not otherwise these responses make no sense...............:rolleyes:

Sure I did read what he said. I even put the comment to which I was referring in bold. He said he thought you should be able to do whatever you like with things you buy.
 
It doesn't make jailbreakers any more brazen at all. There is zero additional risks to developers and no consumer detriment. Jailbreaking had effectively zero legal risk before and it has a certain zero legal risk now.

Zero risks? Want to tell that to the developer that finds their $5 app for Free on one of the jail broken app web sites the DAY after it was released?

If jail breaking goes "viral", most apps builders will be forced to load their apps down with advertising, or move to other platforms. The risk is to revenue.

The risk is to the indie developer putting 3 months into an app, and having 1000 copies downloaded for free for every 5 sales in the real app store.

The risk is that a big game company doesn't launch their next game because the last game didn't recoup the development costs due to jail breaker app download sites...

Bottom line, this is a big blow to the App Store and any one who wants to make reasonable money there. And in that regard, regular consumers will suffer. Apps they buy legitimately will have to be priced higher to cover all the pirated jail broken theft -- or the App simply will never get built.
 
Sure I did read what he said. I even put the comment to which I was referring in bold. He said he thought you should be able to do whatever you like with things you buy.

And then he said responsibility lies with the consumer. Which would mean if you killed someone you would be responsible for that action.
 
But...you don't have to modify OSX to install it and use it. Not sure you are talking about the same thing as others. You buy compatible PC parts. You install vanilla OSX and just use it. How is that modifying anything? How is that not fair use, under the same spirit as this new "law"?

Assuming you don't have to change or replace a single system file, if you install from the DVD onto your hackintosh hard drive that's an unauthorized copy and or an unauthorized derivative work (because the image on the hard drive is not bit-for-bit identical to the DVD).

Assuming you install onto a mac, then remove the harddrive from the mac and install it on a hackintosh, it is a violation of the license agreement, and an unauthorized copy/derivative work when you boot the machine and it copies code into memory.

As for the rest of your analysis, today there is no new "law." There are only safe harbors from an existing law. The safe harbors do not create "fair use" because fair use is a copyright concept, not a DMCA concept. The safe harbors do not effect copyright law in any way, because the library of congress is not authorized to change copyright law - only to make DMCA exceptions.

Essentially all that happened today is that the rules were changed so that you are allowed to pick certain types of locks. You are not allowed to pick a lock to get into a building and steal things, however.

And then he said responsibility lies with the consumer. Which would mean if you killed someone you would be responsible for that action.

Then what he said is meaningless. You still can't jailbreak freely because it's still a violation of your license agreement, and still (probably) copyright infringement.

Sadly today's change is of little practical consequence.
 
THE Great SMACKDOWN of APPLE & ATT

Yeeeeeessssssssssss!

Finally the big A, and ATT get a nice, hard slap upside their closed-loop cash cow heads.
 
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.

Indeed my stance on the issue is quite clear. The fact that "all your posts have been pointed at people like me" is inconsequential, as your posts amount to no more than a collection of long-winded rants, utterly lacking any coherence, thought or logic.

I will make it simple for you though.. If you don't want to jailbreak/unlock your phone and continue living in Steve Jobs' bubble - be my guest. No one is forcing you to do anything differently. But for you to say that those of us who chose to jailbreak/unlock must be treated as criminals - that's simply ludicrous.
 
Well, after ruminating over this for about an hour - I suspect this decision will just give Apple and other phone makers the resolve to harden their devices even further. So, while this may sound like good news, the reality is it will probably make things worse for people who want to jailbreak their phones in the long run.
 
Assuming you don't have to change or replace a single system file, if you install from the DVD onto your hackintosh hard drive that's an unauthorized copy and or an unauthorized derivative work (because the image on the hard drive is not bit-for-bit identical to the DVD).

Assuming you install onto a mac, then remove the harddrive from the mac and install it on a hackintosh, it is a violation of the license agreement, and an unauthorized copy/derivative work when you boot the machine and it copies code into memory.

As for the rest of your analysis, today there is no new "law." There are only safe harbors from an existing law. The safe harbors do not create "fair use" because fair use is a copyright concept, not a DMCA concept. The safe harbors do not effect copyright law in any way, because the library of congress is not authorized to change copyright law - only to make DMCA exceptions.

Essentially all that happened today is that the rules were changed so that you are allowed to pick certain types of locks. You are not allowed to pick a lock to get into a building and steal things, however.



Then what he said is meaningless. You still can't jailbreak freely because it's still a violation of your license agreement, and still (probably) copyright infringement.

Sadly today's change is of little practical consequence.

I guess I just don't understand the difference then. I don't see how installing OSX yourself is a "derivative" work. Or how it's an unauthorized copy. If Jailbreaking isn't illegal (which is why I put "law" into quotes, to imply it's not really a new law) now under fair use...I don't see how installing stuff you own, onto other things you own isn't also "fair use". You're not stealing anything. You're not changing anything. I guess it's just me. I'm not a lawyer. But then again, no one ever says the law makes sense.
 
Sure I did read what he said. I even put the comment to which I was referring in bold. He said he thought you should be able to do whatever you like with things you buy.

Yep. And I stand by that. Only, if you break the law with it, your ass is going in jail. Simple as that. :)
 
Zero risks? Want to tell that to the developer that finds their $5 app for Free on one of the jail broken app web sites the DAY after it was released?

If jail breaking goes "viral", most apps builders will be forced to load their apps down with advertising, or move to other platforms. The risk is to revenue.

The risk is to the indie developer putting 3 months into an app, and having 1000 copies downloaded for free for every 5 sales in the real app store.

The risk is that a big game company doesn't launch their next game because the last game didn't recoup the development costs due to jail breaker app download sites...

Bottom line, this is a big blow to the App Store and any one who wants to make reasonable money there. And in that regard, regular consumers will suffer. Apps they buy legitimately will have to be priced higher to cover all the pirated jail broken theft -- or the App simply will never get built.

You're ignoring the fact that app developers are already building in measures to prevent their apps being copied. You're also ignoring that the barriers to copying apps in a technical and legal sense is still intact.

Given your view that consumers will also suffer from higher prices consider that theft happens in retail stores too. But does it mean that a store should build a giant wall so it's customers can never leave and certainly can't go to another store? Whether it's retail stores or app developers they don't need a giant wall, just good products.
 
Companies need to start releasing unlocked, fully modifiable phones.

It is a joke that Android and iOS devices are crippled by the hardware companies that make them...

I have always felt that you should be able to do whatever you want to do to your own hardware... You shouldn't be able to prosecute someone from modifying something that belongs to them...
 
I have always felt that you should be able to do whatever you want to do to your own hardware... You shouldn't be able to prosecute someone from modifying something that belongs to them...

So you don't think that people should be free to offer whatever contract they like to the purchasers of their goods, including contracts that limit such modifications?
 
You're ignoring the fact that app developers are already building in measures to prevent their apps being copied. You're also ignoring that the barriers to copying apps in a technical and legal sense is still intact.

Given your view that consumers will also suffer from higher prices consider that theft happens in retail stores too. But does it mean that a store should build a giant wall so it's customers can never leave and certainly can't go to another store? Whether it's retail stores or app developers they don't need a giant wall, just good products.

Well stated. Perhaps we can agree to a "non-zero" but reasonably small risk. LOL
 
I guess I just don't understand the difference then. I don't see how installing OSX yourself is a "derivative" work. Or how it's an unauthorized copy. If Jailbreaking isn't illegal (which is why I put "law" into quotes, to imply it's not really a new law) now under fair use...I don't see how installing stuff you own, onto other things you own isn't also "fair use". You're not stealing anything. You're not changing anything. I guess it's just me. I'm not a lawyer. But then again, no one ever says the law makes sense.

Jailbreaking isn't illegal UNDER THE DMCA. That doesn't mean it is legal.

Killing someone doesn't violate the law against theft. It's still illegal.
 
So legal alternative app stores would be permitted as well? Even for apps developed with different tool set than what Apple prescribes?

Adobe for example could then make a store where developers would publish Flash made games and apps. Flash development tool could then just add Flash runtime to it and a jail breaking utility.
 
So legal alternative app stores would be permitted as well? Even for apps developed with different tool set than what Apple prescribes?

Adobe for example could then make a store where developers would publish Flash made games and apps. Flash development tool could then just add Flash runtime to it and a jail breaking utility.

Apple could still sue for violating the license agreement, however at least no one is likely to go to jail.
 
Zero risks? Want to tell that to the developer that finds their $5 app for Free on one of the jail broken app web sites the DAY after it was released?

While that is true, the benefits out weight the risks.

That developer who's app has been rejected by apple now has the chance to sell their product elsewhere.

That developer can use whatever means they want to design and build their app and let users judge for themselves how bad or good it is.

You can make apps and install for your own use.

You have full access to the operating system (advance users) and can go in and delete unwanted files like that Winne the Pooh book. Bet ya didn't know even when you delete ibook it stays there. As well as many other space eating files.

You can have true multitasking using Backgrounder.

A lot of the things in IOS4 were adopted from jailbroken apps. I can go on.

While piracy is wrong its an evil that can't be avoided. (Apple was obviously unsuccessful). Jailbreaking is here to stay.

You can roll with it and get the most of you device or stay within the box Apple makes for you. Its all about choice.
 
The ruling actually goes beyond jb / unlocking, to include some cases of ebook text-to-speech, software protected by hardware dongles, video game testing and DVD ripping.

From http://www.copyright.gov/1201/ :

The Librarian of Congress has announced the classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)) until the conclusion of the next rulemaking.

(1) Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:

(i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;
(ii) Documentary filmmaking;
(iii) Noncommercial videos.

(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.

(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.

(4) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if:

(i) The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and
(ii) The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law.

(5) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace; and

(6) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.
 
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.

Right... Distributing copyrighted films which belong to a production company is quite different from making a cell phone work on different services or downloading user made applications.
 
Apple could still sue for violating the license agreement, however at least no one is likely to go to jail.

Eh, I just saw this in one of the comments:

"One "correction" above. Legal liability may still attach under copyright law, particularly those who commercially benefit by performing or inducing jailbreaking."

So I guess it's down to personal choice. Companies should not be doing jail breaking for commercial benefit. Fair enough I guess.
 
This is a great decision. I've always said its MY device and I can do whatever I want with it.

As far as the EULA goes, Apple is going to have a VERY difficult time convincing a judge or jury that their EULA can outlaw a perfectly legal action. So, while Apple might deny warranty service for jailbroken devices at first, that will quickly change when lawsuits come into play. Theres no way any sane judge or jury will side with Apple in this case. Their EULA canNOT tell you that you can't do something with your device that is 100% legal.

Also, for the people pointing to the Psystar case, that was entirely different than this. Psystar took OS X, modified it, and then resold it. That is COMPLETELY different, night and day difference, compared to jailbreaking a device you OWN for your OWN PERSONAL use.

And for the people saying the government needs to stay out of our lives, I can't help but laugh hysterically at you. This is the government actually taking a step back out of our lives, giving us more freedom and choices.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.