Apple Tyrants Strike Again

[cprofitt]

Apple says jailbreaking its iPhone is copyright infringement and a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.


Say what? They are such champions of the 'little guy'.

http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/18/could-jailbreaking-your-iphone-land-you-in-jail/



So here’s the question: Since Apple built the iPhone, should they be able to tell you what you can and can’t do once you’ve bought it? Or are we merely renting this device along with our AT&T service plan?


I can appreciate not supporting application that Apple did not produce, but Microsoft for all of its evil never controlled the hardware and the software that could a person could run.

[Cenotaph]

Apple is a joke, the whole tech industry is becoming a joke thanks to companies like this... Nowadays a person can't even own what it pays for. Very sad.

[billgoldberg]

Apple says jailbreaking its iPhone is copyright infringement and a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

So?

They aren't in any position to tell people what they can or what they can not do with their property.

Unlike the OS (which you don't own), you do own the phone.

[cprofitt]

Apple says jailbreaking its iPhone is copyright infringement and a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

So?

They aren't in any position to tell people what they can or what they can not do with their property.

Unlike the OS (which you don't own), you do own the phone.

I agree with you Bill... but they have the money, time, ego and audacity to try and push the agenda... and if it gets to the courts there is no telling what will happen.

Though to be honest I just can't fathom how this company still gets painted as the 'think different' company that is for the 'little guy' when they repeatedly do things like this.

[BuffaloX]

If you buy Apple products, you ask for it.
They've always been control freaks.

I stay a long way away from anything from Apple.

[glotz]

Microsoft for all of its evil never controlled the hardware and the software that could a person could run.It's not because of their lack of trying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next-Generation_Secure_Computing_Base

What's it all about and why is it a problem? Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html

Micro$oft and App£e are carved from the same wood, both share the zero respect for your rights.

[Skripka]

Say what? They are such champions of the 'little guy'.

http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/18/could-jailbreaking-your-iphone-land-you-in-jail/



I can appreciate not supporting application that Apple did not produce, but Microsoft for all of its evil never controlled the hardware and the software that could a person could run.

Well. YES, jailbreaking the iPhone IS a violation of the DMCA. It just is. The DMCA IS a law. So YES, it IS illeagal to jailbreak your iPhone. Now, this string of reasoning does NOT say that the DMCA is not in fact an idiotic piece of law.

[swoll1980]

Microsoft for all of its evil never controlled the hardware and the software that could a person could run.

The Xbox, and Xbox 360 have all kinds of annoying security devices in place to keep you from doing the things like installing Ubuntu

[hanzomon4]

Apple says jailbreaking its iPhone is copyright infringement and a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

So?

They aren't in any position to tell people what they can or what they can not do with their property.

Unlike the OS (which you don't own), you do own the phone.

What makes you think you own the phone?

[Brunellus]

Point of fact, jailbreaking *is* a violation of the copyright act.

If you want an open, extensible device on terms agreeable to you-- then by all means develop and buy that device. Or compel better terms by rewriting the applicable statute. But do not whine about "tyranny."

[macogw]

Apple says jailbreaking its iPhone is copyright infringement and a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

So?

They aren't in any position to tell people what they can or what they can not do with their property.

Unlike the OS (which you don't own), you do own the phone.

Hi. The OS is their property, as you said. Jailbreaking it requires modifying it. You have no right to do so under the terms of the licensing. If you wanted that right, you should've bought a phone that runs Google Android.

To jailbreak an iPhone you must get software to do so. That software is made of modified Apple libraries and other binaries. Those libraries are:
1. Not licensed for redistribution
2. Not licensed for modification
They are thus very much not licensed for modified redistribution.

[BuffaloX]

Point of fact, jailbreaking *is* a violation of the copyright act.

If you want an open, extensible device on terms agreeable to you-- then by all means develop and buy that device. Or compel better terms by rewriting the applicable statute. But do not whine about "tyranny."

Why not?

In modern usage, a tyrant is a single ruler holding absolute power over a state or within an organization. The term carries modern connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which the tyrant governs or controls.

Which is exactly what they are doing to both customers and developers.

Also this just came in:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/048/1051048/oh-god-killed-kenny-iphone-app

[CrazyArcher]

Why not?


Which is exactly what they are doing to both customers and developers.

Also this just came in:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/048/1051048/oh-god-killed-kenny-iphone-app

If you don't like it, don't buy it. Not that AAPL are a monopoly in the cellphone business.

[amitabhishek]

Making you not to jailbreak is one thing and curtailing innovation is something else!!!!!!!!

http://i.gizmodo.com/5142445/dissecting-apples-multitouch-patent-can-it-stop-palm

[Brunellus]

Making you not to jailbreak is one thing and curtailing innovation is something else!!!!!!!!

http://i.gizmodo.com/5142445/dissecting-apples-multitouch-patent-can-it-stop-palm
File a patent interference. The Patent Office's examiners are far from infallible. The system depends upon interested parties contesting questionable patents.

[ticopelp]

I wish they hadn't enacted that new law forcing people to buy iPhones at gunpoint. :(

[karellen]

I wish they hadn't enacted that new law forcing people to buy iPhones at gunpoint. :(

:lolflag: by far the most interesting comment of this thread

[notwen]

I wish they hadn't enacted that new law forcing people to buy iPhones at gunpoint. :(

Reminds me of when people got upset about 'having' to accept certain EULAs. LOL

[Brunellus]

See, e.g., ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1997). There, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the enforceability of a clickthrough EULA. ProCD 86 F.3d at 1448-49. But in upholding the enforceability of an EULA, Judge Easterbrook stressed the importance of the terms offered as a means by which software competes:



(R)ivals may elect to compete by offering superior software, monthly updates, improved terms of use, lower price, or a better compromise among these elements. As we stressed above, adjusting terms in buysers' favor might help (a buyer) today ((he halready has the software)) but would lead to a response, such a sa higher price, that might make consumers as a whole worse off.


ProCD 86 F.3d at 1453 (emphasis added). Elsewhere in his opinion, Judge Easterbrook notes:



Licenses may have other benefits for consumers: many licenses permit users to make extra copies, to use the software on multiple computers, even to incorporate the software into the user's products.

Id. at 1455.

Given that U.S. courts are unlikely to render clickthrough EULAs (such as the EULA that governs the iPhone firmware) unenforceable, the only recourse is to compete not only in price and feature, but also in terms of license terms. The fact that you are (presumably) using Ubuntu means that you may have already grasped the benefit of choosing software with more liberal licensing terms than may otherwise be available in the marketplace. It is that sort of realization that will actually bring about change, rather than merely complaining about "tyranny."

[phrostbyte]

Point of fact, jailbreaking *is* a violation of the copyright act.

If you want an open, extensible device on terms agreeable to you-- then by all means develop and buy that device. Or compel better terms by rewriting the applicable statute. But do not whine about "tyranny."

Why can't I do what I want to do with MY own property? So you are saying if I go to the store and buy something, I don't really own it?

[phrostbyte]

Despite what people are saying here, Apple has no right whatsoever to restrict jailbreaking of the iPhone. The EFF themselves have stated this. The EFF makes it clear Apple has no right legal or otherwise to dictate terms after a sale of their hardware, and they will take Apple to court if need be. But Apple is doing nothing but spreading FUD really. This is as "real" as Microsoft's threats to sue Linux.

[Brunellus]

Despite what people are saying here, Apple has no right whatsoever to restrict jailbreaking of the iPhone. The EFF themselves have stated this. The EFF makes it clear Apple has no right legal or otherwise to dictate terms after a sale of their hardware, and they will take Apple to court if need be. But Apple is doing nothing but spreading FUD really. This is as "real" as Microsoft's threats to sue Linux.
People misunderstand and mischaracterize the issues. There are two bodies of law involved with the iPhone--the law of sales (which governs the actual sale of the physical iPhone) and the law of copyright (which governs what a user may or may not do with the SOFTWARE INSTALLED ON THE DEVICE). Apple cannot stop you from doing what you will to the physical iPhone; (Legal maxim: sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas--you may use your (property) as you wish, provided you harm no one else). You may open it, solder it, implant it into your thorax.

But what you cannot do is use their software in a way inconsistent with the terms to which you agreed when they allowed you to use the software. That the software came with the phone, and the phone cannot be purchased without the software, is an extraneous issue.

ALSO: Thread title edited for spelling--it was just getting on my nerves.

[phrostbyte]

People misunderstand and mischaracterize the issues. There are two bodies of law involved with the iPhone--the law of sales (which governs the actual sale of the physical iPhone) and the law of copyright (which governs what a user may or may not do with the SOFTWARE INSTALLED ON THE DEVICE). Apple cannot stop you from doing what you will to the physical iPhone; (Legal maxim: sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas--you may use your (property) as you wish, provided you harm no one else). You may open it, solder it, implant it into your thorax.

But what you cannot do is use their software in a way inconsistent with the terms to which you agreed when they allowed you to use the software. That the software came with the phone, and the phone cannot be purchased without the software, is an extraneous issue.

ALSO: Thread title edited for spelling--it was just getting on my nerves.

Right this is what Apple says, the EFF says that jailbreaking is not illegal and Apple is spreading FUD. EFF has some really good lawyers, even major corporations will not mess with them.

Since I trust the EFF far more then I trust Apple, I will go with their stance on the situation and say jailbreaking is not illegal and Apple is spreading deceptive FUD in an attempt to scare people away from doing something that is within their legal rights.

[Skripka]

Why can't I do what I want to do with MY own property? So you are saying if I go to the store and buy something, I don't really own it?

The phone is "yours".

The software OS, like ALL commercial software, PERMITS you to use the OS under a very limited set of boundaries set in the EULA. Like it or not-Apple's position is stronger here than it is against Psystar.

[phrostbyte]

The phone is "yours".

The software OS, like ALL commercial software, PERMITS you to use the OS under a very limited set of boundaries set in the EULA. Like it or not-Apple's position is stronger here than it is against Psystar.

Ultimately I think it's not within Apple's right to tell you what to do with the hardware OR the software, unless you are churning out copies of the iPhone. But perhaps that's because I take the interpretation of the law that sides with the individual rather then the faceless corporation.

[Brunellus]

Ultimately I think it's not within Apple's right to tell you what to do with the hardware OR the software, unless you are churning out copies of the iPhone. But perhaps that's because I take the interpretation of the law that sides with the individual rather then the faceless corporation.
You're making a normative judgement, not a legal one. If you want to turn that normative judgment into a legal one, your easiest remedy is causing a statute to be enacted that modifies the law. The alternative is more costly and less certain: you are sued for infringement; you defend the suit; you lose; you appeal; and then you have to hope that an appellate court reverses the findings of the trial court, creating a positive rule of law in your favor. You then have to hope that that appellate court is not itself overruled by a higher appellate court, or has its holding limited by the action of other similar courts interpreting the rule against you.

Short story: if your problem is with a statute, and you can find no way to invalidate the statute (constitutionally or otherwise), you should attempt to repeal or amend the statute.

[toupeiro]

I think I already know the answer to this, but does this also apply to the iPod Touch?

More incentive to replace their OS on the device IMO.

[MikeTheC]

@ phrostbyte:

Another thought is you could do what you wished to the iPhone, get called into court over it, refuse to recognize the authority of the court, be found guilty of contempt of court, be placed into custody, continue to refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the situation, attempt to escape from detention, utilize (ostensibly) necessary force to affect such escape, now be a person engaged in what the still-not-recognized-by-you-as-legitimate court considers a statutory offense (i.e. "crime"), and now you're a wanted criminal. I suppose you could push this to the point of being killed by an officer of the law, at which point you could then effectively be beyond the legal reach of said court.

So, the question is: Are you a person of principle, or a person of practicality?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this was the path you chose to take. Can you imagine, upon your untimely and unfortunate death, the uproar there would be over the enforcement of DMCA and EULA-enforcing legal precedents resulting in a directly-attributable death?

The problem is that I sincerely doubt this would be enough to "shock the conscience" of the population into doing anything. You'd be lucky to become a historical footnote in a legal journal somewhere, much less in a civics class history book.

Ultimately, do you feel so strongly about such an issue that you'd choose death over continuing to live in a society and under a government so classified and described?

[Brunellus]

Note that liability here is not criminal, but civil. Imprisonment has not been a remedy for civil wrongs since the abolition of imprisonment for debt.

[MikeTheC]

Note that liability here is not criminal, but civil. Imprisonment has not been a remedy for civil wrongs since the abolition of imprisonment for debt.

No no no... not at all. But that's not what I'm either suggesting or implying. What I'm saying is that contempt of court is a criminal (not a civil) offense.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

But where does the hardware end and the software begin? How can one not use Apple's software on this device he owns without fist circumventing it?

This brings to mind something Super Important: The nacho rule.
If the chips are all stuck together, that counts as one nacho, bro.

If the software is indistinguishably tethered to that hardware you own, you have every right to treat it as an extension of the hardware.

Further, I thought people were allowed to run software of their choosing (after all, it's MacOS). It's just that you need a Mac and a development kit to easily build stuff for it. Correct me if wrong, but I don't think the price of the development kit involves "paying for permission to access the iPhone software as would only be logical without Apple legal trying to eat your brains".
So either Apple's third party developers are all in big trouble, or Apple are a bunch of inconsistent idiots, or I am missing something. Or all three.

One more thing: Why doesn't Nintendo hate their homebrew community? Granted, they don't help them, and they don't like the devices that homebrew community must use to access the hardware (since they enable piracy), but I haven't seen Nintendo say "homebrewers are scum who dare to think different." Why is this?

[Dr. C]

But where does the hardware end and the software begin? How can one not use Apple's software on this device he owns without fist circumventing it?

This brings to mind something Super Important: The nacho rule.
If the chips are all stuck together, that counts as one nacho, bro.

If the software is indistinguishably tethered to that hardware you own, you have every right to treat it as an extension of the hardware.

Further, I thought people were allowed to run software of their choosing (after all, it's MacOS). It's just that you need a Mac and a development kit to easily build stuff for it. Correct me if wrong, but I don't think the price of the development kit involves "paying for permission to access the iPhone software as would only be logical without Apple legal trying to eat your brains".
So either Apple's third party developers are all in big trouble, or Apple are a bunch of inconsistent idiots, or I am missing something. Or all three.

One more thing: Why doesn't Nintendo hate their homebrew community? Granted, they don't help them, and they don't like the devices that homebrew community must use to access the hardware (since they enable piracy), but I haven't seen Nintendo say "homebrewers are scum who dare to think different." Why is this?

Actually Apple requires that all iPhone applications be signed by Apple and be distributed via the Apple store This is to ensure that

1) No FLOSS applications can be distributed for the iPhone
2) Apple can censor any application they do not like and this has happened
3) Apple can collect a tax to be determined by Apple on the intellectual property of the application developers when copies of their software is distributed.

(3) is really no different from the situation in the mid 1700's where tea from India had to be first shipped to England where it was taxed before being shipped to the American Colonies. This led to the Boston Tea Party and the rest is history.

One thing about the iPhone is that jailbraking it can actually be a matter of life and death. The iPhone has a GPS but in order to use it with the official application the maps have to be downloaded each time form the cellular provider in order to allow the cellular provider to tax the maps each time (The Boston Tea Party scenario again). If the iPhone is jail broken the maps can be downloaded once from Internet and stored on the device. Now picture a situation where people are stranded and injured in a remote area and need to call for help. There is enough signal to get a text message out for help but not enough for a voice call or to download the maps (this has already happed in British Columbia) If the iPhone is jail-broken and the maps are stored on the device then GPS coordinates can be text-ed out to the rescuers; however if if the iPhone is not jail-broken, then the GPS will not work and the GPS coordinates are not provided to the rescuers resulting in a much delayed rescue and loss of life.

Cracking the DRM in an iPhone and jail breaking it may turn out to be a matter of life and death.

[emshains]

Apple says jailbreaking its iPhone is copyright infringement and a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

So?

They aren't in any position to tell people what they can or what they can not do with their property.

Unlike the OS (which you don't own), you do own the phone.

But they can tell you what they do with the OS it is running.

[Dr. C]

But they can tell you what they do with the OS it is running.

That depends on the local law. In Canada for example where there in no anti-circumvention law (the Canadian DMCA Bill C-61 died with the fall election) Apple would have a very tough case if at all. In the United States, land of the DMCA, on the other hand the may have a good case.

[macogw]

Why can't I do what I want to do with MY own property? So you are saying if I go to the store and buy something, I don't really own it?

You bought hardware and a license to the software. The license to the software does not allow you to modify said software. You did not buy ownership of the copyright of that software.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Actually Apple requires that all iPhone applications be signed by Apple and be distributed via the Apple store This is to ensure that

1) No FLOSS applications can be distributed for the iPhone
2) Apple can censor any application they do not like and this has happened
3) Apple can collect a tax to be determined by Apple on the intellectual property of the application developers when copies of their software is distributed.

(3) is really no different from the situation in the mid 1700's where tea from India had to be first shipped to England where it was taxed before being shipped to the American Colonies. This led to the Boston Tea Party and the rest is history.

Ah, but here is the problem: One person can run his own software on his own iPhone without asking Apple. That software could contain any ammount of other peoples' work. (Otherwise the development kit would be unusable).

Thus: What is wrong with people running software that is .1 percent theirs on their own iPhones? (That .1 percent being the effort of downloading and the positive comments in the developer's email).

Finally, does one have the choice to own an iPhone without agreeing to the software license? If he doesn't like the software, can he safely return it to the place of purchase and continue to use the separately licensed hardware he owns?
I have a vague recollection of some legally binding stuff here with regards to bundling Windows with new PCs.

[dragos240]

Wierd, pretty interesting though, if i get one, i'll try to make it a linux somehow, i dont really care.