Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Actually, this is the government un-meddling. The government is providing an exception to a law that otherwise restricts your rights to do things. In other words, you have more rights and freedoms than you did yesterday. This is the opposite of government meddling, unless your belief is that only corporations should have freedom.
No. This has nothing to do with warranty or contracts.

Thank you. Someone that add two and two.
 
wow, this is were my tax money is going? :mad: government meddling in the business affairs of one of the most innovative and successful brands of the last 30 years. last time i checked, apple/iphone didn't have a monopoly on the market. why is the government continuously attempting to penalize the success of a private business?

that's what happens when you think like a socialist/communist. you see who's on top, and you figure out ways to bring them right back down. whoever is on top MUST be doing something wrong. in our brave new world, everybody gets a trophy, but nobody actually wins. :rolleyes:

AWWW boohoohoo the government is too big, it's meddling it private business boohoohoo. cry about it. somehow Republitards and teabaggers always surface on these forums. they're giving the individual citizens MORE freedom and clarifying that they have freedom to do something if they choose, and yet some of my fellow Americans take issue with that too, which is just embarrassing. Get over it, this is a good thing. IT'S THE GOVERNMENTS JOB TO SET THESE STANDARDS!! stop saying its not, believe me, if the government didnt sometimes mandate corporations we'd be living in a terrible country with lots of monopolies. it's got nothing to do with "socialism". btw that word is so played out. suck it up and quit whining.
 
SkippyThorson said:
No. No no no. This is not useful. This is the exact opposite. This is interference. This is the Gov. attempting to remdy something that NEEDS NO CHANGING. If people want to Jailbreak their devices, they assume 100% responsibility for what happens to it when they think they know what they're doing.

You clearly have no clue what this change actually means... the Gov doens't force Appel to do anything, they simply allow users to JB.

Of course he doesn't.. Like any mouth-breathing wingnut (aka "tea party" member), he just sees the word "government" and it gets him angry and indignant. Never mind that this is an example of government actually attempting to DE-regulate, and shift some of the power of the corporations to the people.

But who is interested in these details.. That's why arguing with a wingnut is an exercise in futility.
 
Of course he doesn't.. Like any mouth-breathing wingnut (aka "tea party" member), he just sees the word "government" and it gets him angry and indignant. Never mind that this is an example of government actually attempting to DE-regulate, and shift some of the power of the corporations to the people.

But who is interested in these details.. That's why arguing with a wingnut is an exercise in futility.

Yeah, basically. I think it's ridiculous that it seems to be popular among some americans over the last couple of years to be all "anti-government", even when the government is doing something clearly good for its citizens. If you ask me, the right wingers are starting to sound a lot like anarchists. and they just love pulling the "socialism" card too. People need to lay off the fox news, i like my US government just the way it is thank you very much. if they need to meddle in corporate affairs every so often to ensure the greater good of the people, so be it.

PS
The "tea party" is a JOKE, they seriously have no idea what they're babbling about. and they call themselves "patriotic constitution loving americans". they are not to be taken seriously. they remind me of right wing hippies.
 
No, jailbreaking won’t ever be mainstream. It offers very little benefit and a lot of hassle. It’s a fringe option that 99% of the public (despite the impression you get on a techie niche like MR) will never have any interest in.

As for piracy, that’s the main benefit, and it’s a shame—but this clarification won’t foster piracy because pirates don’t care what’s legal anyway.

As for malware... sure, maybe—additional security flaws could potentially be introduced by jailbreaking. But that’s the least of the problems. People who embark on jailbreaking are prepared to research the issues, keep on top of them as they change, and solve them as they arise.

Apple’s “walled garden” is VERY beneficial to users. It makes their products far better and more functional (and is far less “walled” than people like to claim). However, if people want to strike out on their own and install some other software, I support that. (Just not piracy; not taking the creative work of developers without paying them.)
absolutely not true, i know many people who are not tech savy at all with broken ipods and iphones.
 
IMHO. The governemnt only did this for one reason mainly.

1. Millions of people have iphones, ipods
2. Many of those jailbreak their iphones ipods, etc. (Is there a percentage of how many jailbreak their iphones ipods?)
3. People might consider jailbreaking as something "illegal" and therefore
start a thought process in the back of their heads that when something you own isn't working right, you can do something "illegal"to get around it and take benefit. Spreading this course of action into other life activities, processes, etc.
4. Gov says it's ok to jailbreak iphones.
5. People who do it are still "under the law"
6. Gov wins. All's right with the world.
 
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.

Jailbreaking is NOT going to go anymore viral because of this ruling. There has not been a million iphone owners that were afraid to jailbreak their iphone because of what Apple might do under DCMA. 90% of Americans have NO idea what DCMA even does/doesn't do for them.
 
You have posted numerous rants in this thread complaining about this latest LoC decree, while all it does is declares Jailbreaking/Unlocking legal. This leads me to think you would rather see Jailbreaking/Unlocking made illegal (and therefore people who jailbreak/unlock would become criminals by extension).

If you don't believe unlocking/jailbreaking is a crime, then you have nothing to complain about as far as this LoC finding goes.

Again, assumption. You've yet to answer my first question. At no time did I say jailbreakers/unlockers are criminals. I've jailbroken my first iPhone and hated it. So am I a criminal myself? By your logic, I've contradicted myself. Ok.


You clearly have no clue what this change actually means... the Gov doens't force Appel to do anything, they simply allow users to JB.

It's spelled Apple. Not Appel, and this does force Apple to do something - tolerate the jailbreakers when they shouldn't have to. Right now, Apple doesn't care. They don't arrest people in their stores with jailbroken devices. I didn't care either. Now I do, because now everyone else does.

I have jailbroken my iPod and it works just perfectly fine, thank you. I now have full multitaksing for apps that don't support it yet through 4.0 (so now I can use another app while downloading some new content) and through SBSsettings I can asjust brightness, (de)activare WiFi, rotation or VPN without leaving an app. It works perfectly fine. Yu saying it doesn't just proves you are a blind biggot: if you don't wanna JB, then don't, fine with me. But don't call me an idiot and spread lies about the experience, which is jsut as great as before my JB.

I'm glad it works for you, it sucked for me. Royally. It was glitchy and slow, and half my apps (that were approved) didn't open. The ones off Cydia did, oddly. Which leads me to believe it's not a problem with the Apple approved side of things. I'm a biggot because it didn't work for me? Yeah, that was really ignorant. Spread lies? Yeah. I made it up. That's why I don't have it jailbroken today. It was that great.

They couldn't and they don't: the DMCA acutally outlawed making changes to the software without explicit permission from Apple. Effectively outlawing a JB. So now you can't end up with a huge fine or some jailtimefor a silly JB. Hwever, in the EULA Apple still states that warranty voids after a JB, and this doesn't change.

No one I ever knew was prosecuted or fined for jailbreaking or unlocking. Hell, T-Mobile handed a buddy of mine a Sim. He's still walking free.

Again: if you don't want the extra apps: sure, go ahead. But don't tell me I don't need them. I can make my own choices, you sound an awful lot like a damn commie if you ask me...

Where did I say you couldn't have more apps? Quote me. Yeah, I'm a communist. Did you act in Deliverance?

This is a fair point for those with the old, unlimited data-plan. However, AT&T is now fully switching to the bucket-system, in which paying extra for tethering makes NO SENSE AT ALL!!! You apy for 250MB or 2GB. On what device you use those few megabytes should not be any of AT&T's bussiness: it doesn't matter for their network at all.

I actually agree with you here, though it has nothing to do with my previous argument, you're totally right, but still, you should be going through AT&T, since it's their network, even if MB should be free. No one should care about 200 / 250 MB a month.

The exclusivity between Appelk and AT&T is only for sales. usage is somethign that only involves the customer's choice. Again: you sound like a communist bastard wanting to limit everyones freedom of choice by telling us what works for you whould work for everyone.

Again, Apple. Not Appelk. Don't use profanity. I didn't, and am not, but ok. I'm a communist, and have a Nazi flag in my garage, and sport a Hitler stache.

Steve Your Lord Jobs told you "don't hold it that way", that's ok. When I say what doesn't work, I get called a communist? Alright. Whatever.

...you are a right-winged blind biggot. In this case, the Gov is actually protecting customer and personal freedom. it is not forcing Apple or AT&T to offer a service IN ANY WAY. It is only preventing them from suing people over a JB.

They're forcing people to just go with what they don't want to - in this case Apple to tolerate jailbreaking, moreso than they already have without any say.

you sound like a racist, right-winged biggot that calls everything this administration does evil communism. While you are actually the enemy of both consumers worldwide and the world itself. People like you prevented the recent bill on CO2-restrictions and support the filibuster-craze that is killing democracy. You, sir, are destroying both society and the world because you have been raised to hate anything donkey. For that I both hate and pity you.

BEST YET! I'm a racist? Yes. Glad you pointed that out. My "ball's in your court" was TOTALLY a stab at our half-black-half-white president. Absolutely.

Please don't hate and pity me. Ow, my feelings. It's ok, though. Jesus understands and loves you still, as do I. It's a love hotter than a thousand blinding white suns.

(Any mods care to take note? Where did I insult this kid?)
 
They're forcing people to just go with what they don't want to - in this case Apple to tolerate jailbreaking, moreso than they already have without any say.

Are they? how did you come to this conclusion? all they're doing is telling the american people "hey, if you want to jailbreak that's certainly your right". theyre just making sure apple doesnt try any funny business or eventually try to go after the people who create jailbreak solutions for the public. theyre just ensuring our rights, which is what our government is supposed to it. sometimes i wonder if you right wingers really know what you want or not, or whether you just oppose anything with the word "government" in it. would you prefer the huge corporations controlled everything and the government had no say in it to protect consumer rights? sometimes i think republicans would prefer that, but i for one prefer that the government has some say in these things. but these views might get me labeled as a "socialist" by the teabaggers. oh well, i'm over it.
 
Are they? how did you come to this conclusion? all they're doing is telling the american people "hey, if you want to jailbreak that's certainly your right". theyre just making sure apple doesnt try any funny business or eventually try to go after the people who create jailbreak solutions for the public. theyre just ensuring our rights, which is what our government is supposed to it. sometimes i wonder if you right wingers really know what you want or not, or whether you just oppose anything with the word "government" in it. would you prefer the huge corporations controlled everything and the government had no say in it to protect consumer rights? sometimes i think republicans would prefer that, but i for one prefer that the government has some say in these things. but these views might get me labeled as a "socialist" by the teabaggers. oh well, i'm over it.

Oh boy.

Big corporations control things, the Gov. controlls things, individuals control things... It's not a control thing. It's a get out of someone else's business thing. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care what really happens in the end, it's that nothing had to be said in the beginning. It's that they told Apple that it should be ok, when Apple never really cared to a point where they pursue anything anyhow.

Think of it, really. Apple hasn't bothered chasing after anyone, and they more than likely won't. Steve doesn't care, Jony doesn't care, Phil and Tim don't care... If nothing was said today, everything would still be in the same place it was this morning. It's the fact that something was put out at all, that didn't need to be. My gripe is that someone opened their mouth that could have stayed shut in the Grey House.

For the record everyone, I voted Obama, and I'm a registered republican to vote in my local crap, where all the decent local politicians are, save Governor Blindside.
 
Oh boy.

Big corporations control things, the Gov. controlls things, individuals control things... It's not a control thing. It's a get out of someone else's business thing. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care what really happens in the end, it's that nothing had to be said in the beginning. It's that they told Apple that it should be ok, when Apple never really cared to a point where they pursue anything anyhow.

So the United States government, who created the DMCA, should be quiet regarding modifications to the DMCA because....?
 
Oh boy.

Big corporations control things, the Gov. controlls things, individuals control things... It's not a control thing. It's a get out of someone else's business thing. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care what really happens in the end, it's that nothing had to be said in the beginning. It's that they told Apple that it should be ok, when Apple never really cared to a point where they pursue anything anyhow.

Think of it, really. Apple hasn't bothered chasing after anyone, and they more than likely won't. Steve doesn't care, Jony doesn't care, Phil and Tim don't care... If nothing was said today, everything would still be in the same place it was this morning. It's the fact that something was put out at all, that didn't need to be. My gripe is that someone opened their mouth that could have stayed shut in the Grey House.

For the record everyone, I voted Obama, and I'm a registered republican to vote in my local crap, where all the decent local politicians are, save Governor Blindside.

They never bother pursuing anyone, but the legality of jailbreaking was a legal grey area at best. It needed to be clarified. That's what that government agency was created to do. I really don't see what your issue is. And luckily judging by the ratings for this article, most people have no issue with this. Just the government doing their job. And it IS their job. Period.
 
cmaier said:
Sure.

.



it wouldn't get to a jury. It would be dismissed in summary judgment.

Are you even aware of California's consumer protection laws?



That's not even close to the same thing. EULAs tying software to hardware have been generally upheld.

proof?

Arbitration clauses are considered particularly oppressive, so yes, they have been thrown out in so-called adhesion contracts. The type of clause we are talking about here is completely different, and has not been thrown

It haas yet to be challenged. And, in California at least, it would never last. Especially not when put up to a jury.
 
marksman said:
But Apple's issue with people jailbreaking their phones has nothing to do with the DMCA.

I hope people realize this means and changes absolutely nothing.

Did you read Apple's statement to the library of congress? They wanted jail breaking ruled illegal under the DMCA due to copy right issues. The library of congress basically told Apple they were full of it and to shove it.
 
Yes it does. Apple expressly stated that they believed that jailbreaking violates the DMCA.

Not it doesn't, and as you can see what Apple says you are again wrong. No surprise given how often you are wrong on these forums.

Did you read Apple's statement to the library of congress? They wanted jail breaking ruled illegal under the DMCA due to copy right issues. The library of congress basically told Apple they were full of it and to shove it.



Did you read Apple's response to the LOC's announcement? Shove it basically, because it doesn't matter, Apple does not support or allow people to jailbreak their phones. It has never been illegal, and Apple has never pursued anyone on DMCA violations.

Again nothing has changed, and this has never been about DMCA violations. If you think that is why Apple does not support jail breaking you are not paying attention.
 
SkippyThorson said:
They're forcing people to just go with what they don't want to - in this case Apple to tolerate jailbreaking, moreso than they already have without any say.

Dude, your logic is so tortured and twisted.. It makes my 3 year old sound like a law professor. I know I am just wasting my time here, but try to get this into your head:

This decree isn't about Apple or any particular phone manufacturer or carrier. It simply declares that jailbreaking/unlocking the phone is exempt from DMCA anti-circumvention clause. The law says nothing about requiring Apple to start supporting jailbroken/unlocked phones. It only means they cannot take someone to court for jailbreaking on the grounds of DMCA violation.​

To most logical and clear thinking people this is a GOOD thing. To right-wing tea party crazies and their corporatist masters - this is "government meddling" and interference with the corporations' rights to walk all over us.
 
To most logical and clear thinking people this is a GOOD thing. To right-wing tea party crazies and their corporatist masters - this is "government meddling" and interference with the corporations' rights to walk all over us.

Thank you.
 
Are you even aware of California's consumer protection laws?

Yes. I've been tested on them once or twice.

Not it doesn't, and as you can see what Apple says you are again wrong. No surprise given how often you are wrong on these forums.

Oh really? Take a look: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/apple-says-jailbreaking-illegal

I guess everyone in macrumors can now see which one of us is so often wrong.

I said:
Yes it does. Apple expressly stated that they believed that jailbreaking violates the DMCA.

You said:

Not it doesn't, and as you can see what Apple says you are again wrong. No surprise given how often you are wrong on these forums.

The fact is, according to the EFF: "Jailbreaking an iPhone constitutes copyright infringement and a DMCA violation, says Apple in comments filed with the Copyright Office as part of the 2009 DMCA triennial rulemaking. "

Oh, and if you don't trust the EFF, here is a link to the actual document filed by Apple: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/apple-inc-31.pdf



I'll be waiting for your apology.
 
Not it doesn't, and as you can see what Apple says you are again wrong. No surprise given how often you are wrong on these forums.
Here's an article, from roughly a year and a half ago, where Apple publicly stated that they believe jailbreaking an iPhone violates the DMCA:

http://news.cnet.com/apple-iphone-jailbreaking-violates-our-copyright/

Oh, and is he "often wrong" because he doesn't take a Apple-is-always-right stance or doesn't agree with Apple's policies 100% of the time? Because for the most part, he's usually been one of the few posters on MR who actually makes educated arguments and supports his arguments with facts, compared to the normal "derp a derp Apple always right derp derp" argument that most make.

Did you read Apple's response to the LOC's announcement? Shove it basically, because it doesn't matter, Apple does not support or allow people to jailbreak their phones. It has never been illegal, and Apple has never pursued anyone on DMCA violations.
Apple hasn't pursued people because it's a niche and, in the grand scheme of things, it'd hurt their public image far more than simply letting jailbreakers exist (similar to how Apple allows the OS X x86 project to continue even though they don't care for it).

However, see link above for Apple's take on jailbroken iPhones, illegality and DMCA violations.

Again nothing has changed, and this has never been about DMCA violations. If you think that is why Apple does not support jail breaking you are not paying attention.
See link above (yet again) regarding Apple's view on DMCA violations with jailbreaking.

Also, the government's view that Apple should service the iPhones still, to me at least, makes sense in so far as basically if you have a hardware failure, Apple should be required to honor the warranty in so far as hardware coverage goes.

Now, I'm not an expert in these matters, so someone can correct me, but here's how I've always viewed it: when you purchase an iPhone, you're purchasing the actual hardware, and it is now owned by you. However, you're only licensing the software that runs on it.

Now, in this case, the government is basically saying that users are free to make changes to their iPhone that grant them greater choice (but seemingly only so far as to not promote copyright infringement). It seems like they're basically using the same logic that they've applied in DMCA cases where a company provided a circumvention utility/device/etc. that did not promote copyright infringement. Essentially, jailbreaking grants users greater functionality from the hardware that they purchased, but if they use said jailbreaking to install pirated apps, etc., then the act of installing the pirated application itself would obviously violate the DMCA.

Thus, with regards to jailbreaking, if, say, the screen goes out on your iPhone, the fact it was jailbroken has no relevance to that hardware failure, and thus the government believes Apple should still service the iPhone under the warranty. If however you bring your jailbroken iPhone to Apple because you're having problems with the OS, Apple would not be under any obligation to assist you, since you violated their EULA.
 
Now, I'm not an expert in these matters, so someone can correct me, but here's how I've always viewed it: when you purchase an iPhone, you're purchasing the actual hardware, and it is now owned by you. However, you're only licensing the software that runs on it.

Correct. Many people don't think this should be the case, but like it or hate it, that's the way it is. Even absent the license, you would still only own the physical copy of the software - your rights to the software are limited by copyright law. For example you can't copy the software, you can't modify it to create a derivative work, you can't distribute it, etc. (Of course, copyright restrictions are subject to fair use. So you can make backup copies, etc.)

But that's a whole other regime than DMCA, which is the topic of today's announcement.
 
Just one more step...

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

You, and anyone with this opinion, have confused license, with freedom.

The Federal Government is well in its place to oversee interstate commerce. I'd like to see them go after contracts next. Get rid of cell phone contracts, they're an unnecessary dinosaur.

1) I don't have to worry about "mandatory" arbitration anymore.

2) I could root any phone I choose to buy

3) I could unlock the phone and switch carriers

4) I wouldn't be pinned into a contract <<< This is what we need next!

This would have a huge, positive benefit in the consumer market place. It's called customer service.
 
Was this supposed to be sarcasm???

Oh boy.
It's a get out of someone else's business thing.

And this is what this ruling has just made sure of. Businesses can't prosecute me for making my hardware work (my business).

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care what really happens in the end, it's that nothing had to be said in the beginning.

You're right. The whole thing (iPhone) could have just been entirely open source to start with.

It's that they told Apple that it should be ok, when Apple never really cared to a point where they pursue anything anyhow. Think of it, really. Apple hasn't bothered chasing after anyone, and they more than likely won't.

Because we've NEVER seen a business that is behaving altruistically now change gears and start suing people (patent trolls), never happens...

Steve doesn't care, Jony doesn't care, Phil and Tim don't care...

Can I ask where you got those quotes from. I can't find any source material from any of those people saying, "You know, we really don't care that people are violating the EULA, and what we believe the DMCA to say..."

If nothing was said today, everything would still be in the same place it was this morning. It's the fact that something was put out at all, that didn't need to be.

Obviously it did need to be said. Enough people are saying, "Yes, thank God, I can't go to jail for jailbreaking" that I think you are mistaken at minimum.

My gripe is that someone opened their mouth that could have stayed shut in the Grey House.

Considering your lack of respect, I don't see this as anything but your own opinion. I guess it qualifies as "white noise."

For the record everyone, I voted Obama, and I'm a registered republican to vote in my local crap, where all the decent local politicians are, save Governor Blindside.

For the record, this is the kind of policy that liberals make (more government control of business). Why are you surprised, or even complaining?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.