Now legal in the U.S.: Jailbreaking your iPhone, ripping a DVD for education(crunchgear.com)
crunchgear.com
Now legal in the U.S.: Jailbreaking your iPhone, ripping a DVD for education
http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/07/26/now-legal-in-the-u-s-jailbreaking-your-iphone-ripping-a-dvd-for-educational-purposes/
89 comments
"In fact, it sounds like it's legal to jailbreak an iPhone but not an iPod touch..."
Perhaps one could extend the scope of this to the iPod touch by considering the case of one with a bluetooth headset and VoIP software running. The iPod touch may be much less well known as a telephone, but like the iPhone it is a product with many possible uses. Talk on it and have someone try to prove it isn't a phone.
Perhaps one could extend the scope of this to the iPod touch by considering the case of one with a bluetooth headset and VoIP software running. The iPod touch may be much less well known as a telephone, but like the iPhone it is a product with many possible uses. Talk on it and have someone try to prove it isn't a phone.
Be shown that there isn't a SIM card in it, and try to explain the difference to a judge / jury.
Verizon and Sprint phones don't have a SIM card and they're still phones, ask anyone ;).
The Copyright Office's exemption guidelines should be read as a list of things that would get the law struck down in court, and hence the government isn't going to prosecute. I doubt a prosecutor is going to risk the entire DMCA on "wifi telephone" versus "AT&T telephone".
It would now be perfectly legal for T-Mobile to offer a service where you walk into any T-Mobile store and they unlock your iPhone for you, to use on their network.
However, it's also perfectly legal (and in my opinion legitimate) for Apple to refuse to provide any further customer service for someone who broke their agreement with Apple by doing this.
There's a T-Mobile store in Queens, NY that was already doing this a week ago, they had a huge banner outside that said something to the extent of 'We sell and unlock iPhones.' I remember pointing it out to a friend and wondering how it was legal but I guess now it makes sense.
If anyone wants to check it out, it's at the corner of 74th and Broadway in Jackson Heights.
If anyone wants to check it out, it's at the corner of 74th and Broadway in Jackson Heights.
That seems a little deceptive though, since you will only be able to get EDGE data.
I had a friend with a T-Mobile powered iPhone, got 3G and Edge no problem.
Can you supply some more details on this? The radio in the iPhone and T-mobile's 3G spectrum range are supposed to be incompatible (in other words the two operate on different ranges).
In Germany and The Netherlands, T-Mobile has been the official carrier for the iPhone for years. The T-Mobile brand is being used in a lot of countries.
T-Mobile USA is the odd one out, though. It was a preexisting network (VoiceStream) which after being purchased by Deutsche Telekom was given the T-Mobile name for the sake of international brand unity.
T-Mobile USA is the odd one out, though. It was a preexisting network (VoiceStream) which after being purchased by Deutsche Telekom was given the T-Mobile name for the sake of international brand unity.
Curious, considering that T-Mobile's 3G network is on a frequency that iPhone hardware doesn't support. (U.S. iPhone, U.S. T-Mobile.)
It doesn't seem to work the other way around at least. I wasn't able to get 3G with an unlocked mytouch on AT&T's network.
Is there a list somewhere of the countries in which an unlocked iPhone will work with a prepaid sim?
I read on Fred Wilson's blog that it works in the UK (and presumably the rest of Western Europe). I am specifically wondering about Australia and Japan.
Can I buy an iPhone 4 in the USA, get it unlocked in Queens, and use it in Australia with a sim?
Edit - I'm mostly wondering if the radio in the US version of the phone supports the networks in .au and .jp.
I read on Fred Wilson's blog that it works in the UK (and presumably the rest of Western Europe). I am specifically wondering about Australia and Japan.
Can I buy an iPhone 4 in the USA, get it unlocked in Queens, and use it in Australia with a sim?
Edit - I'm mostly wondering if the radio in the US version of the phone supports the networks in .au and .jp.
Any carrier unlocked iPhone will work with all the carriers in South Africa. The frequencies available are GSM 900/1800 and UMTS/HSDPA 2100 and all the carriers offer micro-SIMs if asked.
In fact, that's true for the rest of Africa too, where you're pretty much guaranteed to find at least one GSM 900/1800 network wherever you go and in many cases a UMTS/HSDPA 2100 3G network as well, though the coverage might not be as comprehensive as it is in South Africa.
In fact, that's true for the rest of Africa too, where you're pretty much guaranteed to find at least one GSM 900/1800 network wherever you go and in many cases a UMTS/HSDPA 2100 3G network as well, though the coverage might not be as comprehensive as it is in South Africa.
It should work fine as long as you carrier unlock the iPhone. I'm not sure if this is available for the iPhone 4 yet though (due to baseband changes), I know it's possible for older generations. Don't waste your money getting it unlocked at a store though, do some research and use one of the many available free (and now legal) programs like blackra1n and quickpwn.
Yes, in Australia, not in Japan. The latter don't accept GSM SIMs. But it will work of course if you use a SIM card that let you roam in Japan, with normal (read: ridiculous) charges.
My iPhone 3G worked perfectly in Australia once unlocked. Vodafone month-to-month with the 100MB data plan was the most economical option at the time.
starkfist, you'd need to get a prepaid microsim, which I'd imagine is not too common. Or, you could cut up a regular sim.
But will the radio work? I guess that is what I'm really asking... if the radio in the phone will work with networks in the USA, Japan and Australia. I'm going to add that to my original post.
The iPhone has an UMTS radio that supports the following bands: 850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz. For GSM/EDGE it supports the 850, 900, 1800, and 1900 MHz bands.
http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
In the US, AT&T uses the 850 and 1900 Mhz bands. (There's no other network in the US that has iPhone-compatible 3G service.)
In Australia, Telstra uses the 850 Mhz band, others use the 2100 Mhz band.
In Japan, 1700 and 2100 Mhz bands are used.
All of these frequencies, except for the 1700 Mhz band, are supported by the iPhone 4.
http://www.worldtimezone.com/gsm.html
http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
In the US, AT&T uses the 850 and 1900 Mhz bands. (There's no other network in the US that has iPhone-compatible 3G service.)
In Australia, Telstra uses the 850 Mhz band, others use the 2100 Mhz band.
In Japan, 1700 and 2100 Mhz bands are used.
All of these frequencies, except for the 1700 Mhz band, are supported by the iPhone 4.
http://www.worldtimezone.com/gsm.html
As far as I can tell, there is only a single quad-band GSM + quad-band 3G/UMTS version of the iPhone; there don't seem to be any regional differences in the hardware. So as long as your target network supports a subset of those bands, you should be fine. In the US, CDMA networks won't work (Verizon, maybe others?), and in Japan you'll be limited to 3G as there's no GSM. Australia, like Europe, uses 900/1800MHz GSM, so you'll be fine.
The awesome EFF can use some donations: https://w2.eff.org/donate/index.php
They have awesome swag too, I love my EFF cap:
https://secure.eff.org/site/Ecommerce/267350841?VIEW_PRODUCT...
https://secure.eff.org/site/Ecommerce/267350841?VIEW_PRODUCT...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't stop Apple from refusing to service your jailbroken iPhone does it? Big news and all, but it seems to me the issue was that Apple would make a fuss and void your warranty, not that people were getting arrested.
Apple has maintained for quite a while that jailbreaking your iPhone is a criminal offence.
So no, the fear was not only of a voided warranty.
So no, the fear was not only of a voided warranty.
> Apple has maintained…
I don't recall Apple ever mentioning jailbreaking, let alone threatening that it was a criminal act. During the initial iPhone announcement there was talk about the supposed dangers of letting any particular app free on AT&Ts mobile network, but since then I can't recall a time when either a phone manufacturer or a service provider has said anything about the legality of jailbreaking, SEEM editing, etc.
I don't recall Apple ever mentioning jailbreaking, let alone threatening that it was a criminal act. During the initial iPhone announcement there was talk about the supposed dangers of letting any particular app free on AT&Ts mobile network, but since then I can't recall a time when either a phone manufacturer or a service provider has said anything about the legality of jailbreaking, SEEM editing, etc.
In Apple's response to the EFF's request for a DMCA exemption, they said that jailbreaking was and should remain illegal. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/apple-says-jailbreaking...
I stand corrected.
I had misunderstood the concern being the distribution of modified, Apple owned software (similar to the Psystar case), but this appears to be a system which patches the software in place, without requiring redistribution of Apple IP.
I had misunderstood the concern being the distribution of modified, Apple owned software (similar to the Psystar case), but this appears to be a system which patches the software in place, without requiring redistribution of Apple IP.
It's very, very easy to reset your iPhone to it's default state, you simply plug it in to your computer, and click "Restore" in iTunes. Apple doesn't have to know anything :-) I think you would have to be very silly to send a jailbroken iPhone to Apple to be serviced if Apple claim it's "illegal" to do so.
A step that depends on ITunes still depends on Apple's forbearance -- if they really wanted to stop this, they could have ITunes either (a) phone home reporting each 'restore' of an iPhone, and its previous state, by its unique ID; (b) leave a small notation in the 'restored' state about its previous state.
It'd simply be the digital equivalent of the stickers that indicate if a unit has been opened or exposed to moisture.
It'd simply be the digital equivalent of the stickers that indicate if a unit has been opened or exposed to moisture.
Thing is, Apple's shareholders would like Apple to stay in business for a while.
Apple's "it's a crime" talk is to scare casual users away from jailbreaking to get pirated software. But they know that experienced users, the ones that write the apps that draw the inexperienced users to the platform, want to jailbreak. And, those users want a warranty. And, they don't want to piss off those users, many of whom have hardware-review blogs.
So my guess is that Apple is not going to void warranties for jailbreaking. If they start doing that, it's going to be really good for Android and really bad for Apple.
Apple's "it's a crime" talk is to scare casual users away from jailbreaking to get pirated software. But they know that experienced users, the ones that write the apps that draw the inexperienced users to the platform, want to jailbreak. And, those users want a warranty. And, they don't want to piss off those users, many of whom have hardware-review blogs.
So my guess is that Apple is not going to void warranties for jailbreaking. If they start doing that, it's going to be really good for Android and really bad for Apple.
I guess that would depend on why you were sending your phone to Apple to get fixed. If it is completely dead then you are not going to be able to reset it but they may well know it has been jailbroken once they fix it.
I wonder if this means the activities of the "iPhone Dev Team" are now truly legal? (Not that I know whether they were before)
If so, the Google Voice angle gives me a horrible idea: imagine if Google snatched up those iPhone jailbreak devs. Google could distribute a jailbreak program to get a true Google Voice app on the iPhone. The downside being that their war with Apple would immediately go nuclear.
If so, the Google Voice angle gives me a horrible idea: imagine if Google snatched up those iPhone jailbreak devs. Google could distribute a jailbreak program to get a true Google Voice app on the iPhone. The downside being that their war with Apple would immediately go nuclear.
It would in practice be similar to the itunes compatibility that Palm tried. It was technically cool, but in the end the cat and mouse game with apple would mean few mainstream users would actually bother and it would make little business sense.
Why would Google do this?
That would depend on its business model. If Google Voice exists solely for the purpose of being a killer app, to differentiate Android phones from the rest of the pack, then there would be no reason to create a client for iOS. If however, the service itself is supposed to bring in revenue of its own, then I'd assume Google would try to make it available for every possible handset out there.
As Google has already made a Google Voice app for the iPhone, I'd say their business model is closer to the second scenario. However, given that the percentage of jailbroken iPhones is quite low, I doubt that they'll bother.
As Google has already made a Google Voice app for the iPhone, I'd say their business model is closer to the second scenario. However, given that the percentage of jailbroken iPhones is quite low, I doubt that they'll bother.
The first problem is that while jailbreaking is now legal, it is also legal for Apple to push a change that happens to break jailbroken phones. Apple doing this could create liability and/or negative publicity for any company that had sold such services on a wide scale.
The second problem is that lawyers will be trying to find a way to create the old result, and are likely to succeed. For instance Apple's restrictions against jailbreaking are almost certainly in their shrinkwrap license contract. Therefore the fact that they can't throw the copyright book at you, doesn't mean that you're necessarily legally in the clear to do it.
The second problem is that lawyers will be trying to find a way to create the old result, and are likely to succeed. For instance Apple's restrictions against jailbreaking are almost certainly in their shrinkwrap license contract. Therefore the fact that they can't throw the copyright book at you, doesn't mean that you're necessarily legally in the clear to do it.
I think that the company that this would create liability and/or negative publicity for would be apple.
Apple has proven willing to brick jailbroken phones in the past. They didn't suffer any liability, and didn't get very much negative publicity. And it did wonders for maintaining the wall around the walled garden they are trying to create with the app store.
Given this, I see nothing to suggest that they won't do it again. And any company who suggests otherwise is taking a definite risk.
Given this, I see nothing to suggest that they won't do it again. And any company who suggests otherwise is taking a definite risk.
Apple has proven willing to brick jailbroken phones in the past.
Have they?
The famous case of "bricking" back in 2007 was not related to a jailbreak, but was a botched unlock tool[1] that corrupted data in the baseband firmware. The corruption then led to problems with an update. Apple issued a warning when the update was released saying it would affect unlocked phones, and I can't imagine this is out of malice so much as it is out of Apple's pre-release testing activities revealing problems.
If it were an intentional attack against people who had jailbroken phones, why did it only affect those who used that particular flavor of unlock software?
With a jailbreak being simply a software modification, when has strictly a jailbreak (not an unlock) led to a bricked phone? At worst, a software update from Apple will just lead to the phone being restored back to non-jailbroken state.
http://code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/wiki/iPhoneBrick
Have they?
The famous case of "bricking" back in 2007 was not related to a jailbreak, but was a botched unlock tool[1] that corrupted data in the baseband firmware. The corruption then led to problems with an update. Apple issued a warning when the update was released saying it would affect unlocked phones, and I can't imagine this is out of malice so much as it is out of Apple's pre-release testing activities revealing problems.
If it were an intentional attack against people who had jailbroken phones, why did it only affect those who used that particular flavor of unlock software?
With a jailbreak being simply a software modification, when has strictly a jailbreak (not an unlock) led to a bricked phone? At worst, a software update from Apple will just lead to the phone being restored back to non-jailbroken state.
http://code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/wiki/iPhoneBrick
it is also legal for Apple to push a change that happens to break jailbroken phones
Are you sure? That sounds like trespass to chattels to me, or if they hadn't tested their update on jailbroken phones, then reckless, possibly criminal negligence.
Are you sure? That sounds like trespass to chattels to me, or if they hadn't tested their update on jailbroken phones, then reckless, possibly criminal negligence.
"Defeating a lawfully obtained DVD’s encryption for the sole purpose of short, fair use in an educational setting OR FOR CRITICISM." Sure, I'm going to blog about this movie. Lemme in.
Seriously, "lawfully obtained" should be the only qualifier needed.
Seriously, "lawfully obtained" should be the only qualifier needed.
Next thing I want: to make it ILLEGAL to manufacture any DVD or player that FORCES consumers to watch previews.
I'm serious. I just sat through 10 minutes of previews the other night for movies like "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel." If I don't have a legal right to skip that, music execs shouldn't have the legal right to stop me from playing high-decibel polka music on their front lawns.
I'm serious. I just sat through 10 minutes of previews the other night for movies like "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel." If I don't have a legal right to skip that, music execs shouldn't have the legal right to stop me from playing high-decibel polka music on their front lawns.
From memory when I read the DVD specs many years ago, the no-skipping provision was put in there solely for the use of the FBI warning screen.
It is an abuse of the spec to mark what are basically "advertisements" as such in order to prevent people skipping them.
It is an abuse of the spec to mark what are basically "advertisements" as such in order to prevent people skipping them.
My understanding is generally that you can get out of it just before it starts playing (by pressing the menu button, I think?) but once it starts playing it uses the same flag for the anti-piracy warning (or something like that), which prevents getting out of it. This issue does not appear on computers, of course, only DVD players.
Of course, this could have changed in newer DVDs or DVD players; though I haven't encountered any disk which has absolutely no way of getting out of the previews, but I tend not to watch many movies.
Also, I think that I have to point out that you are entirely free to mute the DVD and go off somewhere else until the previews are done, if you're unable to find any other way out of them; "FORCES" is a bit of a strong word, given that you were not (I assume) physically prevented from leaving. This is, of course, not an acceptable solution, but it does eliminate the discomfort of sitting through previews.
Of course, this could have changed in newer DVDs or DVD players; though I haven't encountered any disk which has absolutely no way of getting out of the previews, but I tend not to watch many movies.
Also, I think that I have to point out that you are entirely free to mute the DVD and go off somewhere else until the previews are done, if you're unable to find any other way out of them; "FORCES" is a bit of a strong word, given that you were not (I assume) physically prevented from leaving. This is, of course, not an acceptable solution, but it does eliminate the discomfort of sitting through previews.
There are some discs that make it mandatory to watch something first. One example that kills me is the 2-3 minute long schpeal that plays in front of "Elmo's World" DVDs telling us about all the great things Seasame Street does around the world. On some discs, you can fast forward (not skip). On others, it is mandatory to watch the entire thing. This does pose a bit of a problem when your toddler needs his Elmo's World fix and you have to sit and wait...
A person that I know who most assuredly isn't me has a policy that the kid doesn't touch original DVDs. That in the process of making non-original DVDs, you can set the DVD to automatically start right at the movie upon insert is just a bonus. (There's an age where setting the DVD to auto-loop is useful too.)
It's just too easy for original DVDs to get destroyed. Also, this person has a car DVD player that this person doesn't really trust not to destroy the DVD on a particularly hard bump. (Ironically, this person's DVD player finds it easier to play the burned DVD copies; the player refuses to play about 10% of the original DVDs this person has put in it.)
It's just too easy for original DVDs to get destroyed. Also, this person has a car DVD player that this person doesn't really trust not to destroy the DVD on a particularly hard bump. (Ironically, this person's DVD player finds it easier to play the burned DVD copies; the player refuses to play about 10% of the original DVDs this person has put in it.)
it appears you can now refer to yourself in the third person: kids, sesame street... this sounds like an educational setting to me.
For some of these, I've found if Disc Menu on the remote doesn't work, then fast forwarding does. But it isn't 100%. There are some DVDs which are truly a pain :-/
There are some discs that make it mandatory that something be played back first. There's nothing stating you can't mute your TV and go do something else for a few minutes.
That said, I consider this an acceptable workaround given the lack of a real solution.
That said, I consider this an acceptable workaround given the lack of a real solution.
I can't find any way to skip it with my player. And yes, I could mute the previews. Just like they could wear earplugs for my polka concert.
Apparently, haven't tried it yet, if you press STOP STOP PLAY, it skips it. But I have no evidence for this to work.
That's one of the reasons I always use VLC to watch DVD's the first time, and then Handbrake, and then VLC to watch them each subsequent time.
It used to be that very few players actually enforced the "No Skipping" restrictions. Try finding an older player.
You can only use a short clip. IANAL but I think before this, it was not copyright infringment to copy a short clip. However in order to to do that, you needed to break the DRM, which was illegal. It's like the clip in the matrix "Why would you want a phone call when you can't speak?"
Does anyone know what caused clause 4? It seems pretty specific to something. A means to legally allow play of DRM'd games without having to pierce the work firewall? Is there a history behind this?
>>>
(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.
>>>
(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.
When I read that and I think Sony BMG's rootkit or SecuROM. Or maybe just examining the security implications of a game install without letting the manufacturer know about it by bypassing a phone-home feature.
Actually, ArsTechnica has a good article up about this too: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/apple-loses-...
They specifically mention this clause:
It turns out that the real target here is the DRM itself, specifically two controversial systems called SecuROM and SafeDisc. Professor Alex Halderman, a longtime security researcher in this area, begged the Library to let him investigate these kinds of invasive DRM without legal worries.
Actually, ArsTechnica has a good article up about this too: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/apple-loses-...
They specifically mention this clause:
It turns out that the real target here is the DRM itself, specifically two controversial systems called SecuROM and SafeDisc. Professor Alex Halderman, a longtime security researcher in this area, begged the Library to let him investigate these kinds of invasive DRM without legal worries.
What I want to know is: if Apple knowingly brick your jailbroken phone now, are they breaking the law? Or is jailbreaking still at your own risk? (I assume the latter)
I'd assume it's at your own risk, and I'd assume jailbreaking voids your warrenty. It's perfectly common for things to be legal but void your warrenty (e.g. It's legal for me to intentionally hit my iPhone with a hammer, but that voids my warrenty)
I doubt they would be allowed to do that - unless the warranty/contract you have with them allows them to do this (unlikely).
On the other hand check your phone contract; there could be something in there about denying you network access. (or they could try to introduce it). Similar to what Microsoft (was is MS or Sony? I forget) did with cracked consoles.
On the other hand check your phone contract; there could be something in there about denying you network access. (or they could try to introduce it). Similar to what Microsoft (was is MS or Sony? I forget) did with cracked consoles.
I'm sure they would lose some customers this way though ... for example I was going to buy a Motorola Droid, but seeing how it bricks itself now I'm going to pass.
Wanting to unlock/mod your phone is not only for an IT crowd ... I see normal people wanting to do that all the time.
Wanting to unlock/mod your phone is not only for an IT crowd ... I see normal people wanting to do that all the time.
Does this mean that watching DVDs on Linux is finally legal as long as it's for education or criticism?
It looks like the exemption is pretty narrow: ripping DVDs for the purposes of extracting a short excerpt that meets fair-use criteria, for use in another, larger work of commentary or criticism. Essentially, it's now okay to rip a Disney movie for the purposes of grabbing a clip for use in your video podcast discussing representation of gender in Disney movies or something.
There's more general interoperability language in the DMCA though, so it's possible that if the creator of a Linux DVD player were prosecuted, they'd be acquitted. Falling under one of the Copyright Office's explicit exceptions is safer but I don't believe exhaustive.
There's more general interoperability language in the DMCA though, so it's possible that if the creator of a Linux DVD player were prosecuted, they'd be acquitted. Falling under one of the Copyright Office's explicit exceptions is safer but I don't believe exhaustive.
It was already legal under the DMCA (at least, according to the spirit of the law). Apple and the RIAA just wanted you to believe otherwise. The language has simply been clarified so overzealous companies can't easily scare consumers.
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
Looks like it's more than just education and criticism:
> (i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students; > (ii) Documentary filmmaking; > (iii) Noncommercial videos.
Looks like so long as you're looking to use a clip, and your use would qualify as fair use, you can rip a DVD. That can't be what the librarian meant to write though, that would actually encourage people to make backups and then further copy a fair use bit into a different work.
Looks like it's more than just education and criticism:
> (i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students; > (ii) Documentary filmmaking; > (iii) Noncommercial videos.
Looks like so long as you're looking to use a clip, and your use would qualify as fair use, you can rip a DVD. That can't be what the librarian meant to write though, that would actually encourage people to make backups and then further copy a fair use bit into a different work.
What made this illegal before?
DMCA. Circumventing a DRM system for any reason is illegal under DMCA.
I don't think that's entirely true. The DMCA has a bunch of exceptions for things like "interoperability" and "research" that are somewhat vaguely defined, which someone who was subject to a DMCA suit could use as a defense. This rulemaking process carves out a subset of those where the Copyright Office has determined that the activity definitely falls under those exceptions. But unless I'm mistaken, I think it's possible to argue other uses as well--- but you'd have to argue in court why your use was primarily for interoperability purposes. The advantage of doing things that the Copyright Office already declared to fall under those exceptions is that you wouldn't have to argue that point at all, because the issue was already decided.
[deleted]
Thanks. I realized the answer to my question almost immediately after I posted it but I hope someone else will find the information useful.
Apple may not like the ruling, but the funny thing is that this may actually cause an increase in the sales of iPhone.
Apple may actually be fine with it. They may have had a contract clause with AT&T that required them to defend the exclusivity clause in any legal action, possibly including this sort of thing.
Why would it not make sense now to use this as an amicable excuse to axe the AT&T deal from apple's end saying it's clearly no longer legal to do so and just getting on with the business of competing on the basis of product instead of who has the better team of lawyers?
Now it is legal to do what everyone was doing already--to hack our own stuff. It is fascinating to see how laws catch up to the norm. Just wonder why it was illegal in the first place?
Good news for Apple or bad news for them? It would definitely help the IPhone ecosystem but breaks Apple's control.
Does anyone have info on the other DMCA exceptions that were granted? My googlefu only reveals Apple stories.
Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works:
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
Does this open up 3rd party support of jail-broken phones as a legitimate business?
[deleted]
I use an iPhone 3G on T-Mobile (because I'm boycotting AT&T). I wasn't aware that jailbreaking was illegal–I thought Apple was trying to make it so, but it wasn't yet (under the DMCA).
Either way, this is great.
Either way, this is great.
But, no, the wording really is zeroed in on handsets:
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.
In fact, it sounds like it's legal to jailbreak an iPhone but not an iPod touch...