Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

The morals of jailbreaking...

I feel like JBing takes off where apple stopped.......why make something with a ton of potential but fail to follow thru. No offense to the Dev Team and Gehot but don't you think Apple employees people that could have made these options in the phone since day 1? I say say JB on and if I did not JB my iphone I feel it would be just like every other smart phone out there......
 
pcs are junk said:
Stealing applications is illegal, yes, but its expected...most hackers like to use their tools for free.
Click to expand...

Not true in the least. Many hackers use FREE tools and release their own tools for FREE. They don't PIRATE them. Savvy?

fishmd said:
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. The act forbids circumventing encryption technology to copy or modify copyrighted works – in this instance encryption protecting the bootloader connected to the OS operating system itself.

And yes, currently Apple legal along with the RIAA, Hollywood and a handful of others are arguing this before the Library of Congress. The EFF is actually currently seeking a ruling for an exemption to this law in regards to iPhone jailbreaking, making it possible to have a legal and in fact commercial (then people could charge for it) jailbreak available. However, until and IF this gets passed (and it is unlikely as very few exeptions have been made in the past), we may very well be breaking DMCA act by jailbreaking. And this is a law by the way albiet difficult if not impossible to enforce. So, for anyone to state that jailbreaking is 100% not illegal, is not correct. It has really not yet been determined by the courts, but may in fact be and is right now being considered.
Click to expand...

While you are correct that it's still to be determined... At the moment there is nothing illegal about it. Circumvention of encryption for personal use has been defended in courts before and that's exactly what this is. For the same reason we can rip CD, decrypt DVD's, record VHS from our cable box, etc... We can take the encrypted product and remove the encryption for personal use.

I'd like to see something explicitly protecting this though as it is not a right.

tiptopp said:
Thank you all for your input to this.

I was thinking about my closing sentence on the original post last night, and decided that I would come in this morning and change it to remove the 'theft' emphasis. But with so many interesting and well thought out responses I'm not going to.

<snip>

Thanks for your time.

Tiptopp

p.s. - when do I stop being a newbie on this forum? How many posts do I need before I lose the 'doesn't really know what he's talking about' tag? (and before anyone replies, I realise that I have to sound as though I know what I'm talking about as well!).
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to post. It's good to know we're not mostly like pcs are junk as he would like to believe.

As for being a newbie, haha. Just hang in there. :)
 
ViViDboarder said:
While you are correct that it's still to be determined... At the moment there is nothing illegal about it. Circumvention of encryption for personal use has been defended in courts before and that's exactly what this is. For the same reason we can rip CD, decrypt DVD's, record VHS from our cable box, etc... We can take the encrypted product and remove the encryption for personal use.

I'd like to see something explicitly protecting this though as it is not a right.
Click to expand...
Actually, while you are correct that this has gone before the courts, this too is currently being disputed.

U.S. copyright laws forbid the sale of software that bypasses DVD copy protection. Despite this there are hundreds of the software packages available online that have that capability.

In recent cases brought under the existing law the claim was made that the vendors were "unaware of the capability" of the software they offered for sale. Specifically, the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act bans providing information or tools to negate copy-control features. This includes the Contents Scramble System currently employed by DVD's. Individuals and companies are forbidden to sell DVD-ripping programs and copyright attorneys maintain that people who use the software in the US to break the protection are breaking the law.

In fact, the MPAA was successful in getting a court order to ban 321 Studio's flagship product DVD-X Copy. After a number of unsuccessful court battles, the company went out of business despite the fact that the product was a highly popular and successful program.

ie. Circumvention of encryption software has been defended in courts before, but it has not always won.

But I digress, and this is obviously not the point of this particular thread. All I am saying is that there is a lot of stuff out there that we assume is legal, (jailbreaking, DVD ripping etc) which may in fact not be (still being fought in court cases). Just because there is software out there that makes it easy for everyone to do, does not mean it must be ok to do it. Anybody remember the original Napster. :eek:

And by the way, I am not saying I agree with the law. I am just trying to show everyone that there is another legal side to all of this. And I like discussing ethics. And I agree with you as well, I do hope the EFF can get the exception passed for jailbreaking. I love the functionality it brings to the phone. :D

PS. Buy LockInfo and use VividBoarders plug-in. Haha. Very excellent program/s.
 
fishmd said:
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. The act forbids circumventing encryption technology to copy or modify copyrighted works – in this instance encryption protecting the bootloader connected to the OS operating system itself.
Click to expand...

37 CFR Part 201 explicitly exempts circumvention of copyright protection systems for access control technologies from the DMCA. It is perfectly legal for individuals to modify the firmware on our phones in order to achieve a carrier unlock. Doing this requires modification of the firmware to allow execution of unsigned code and modification of the bootloader to allow booting of the modified OS -- in other words, a jailbreak.
 
thelatinist said:
37 CFR Part 201 explicitly exempts circumvention of copyright protection systems for access control technologies from the DMCA. It is perfectly legal for individuals to modify the firmware on our phones in order to achieve a carrier unlock. Doing this requires modification of the firmware to allow execution of unsigned code and modification of the bootloader to allow booting of the modified OS -- in other words, a jailbreak.
Click to expand...

Lawyered!
 
ViViDboarder said:
What about all of us developers that release apps for free and only get paid in the satisfaction of seeing our download counts go up? *tear*

I have no problem supporting a developer but if someone is releasing another app that does the same thing for free... I'm going to try the free one. If it sucks and the paid one is worth it and has a better experience? I'm going to buy the paid one.
Click to expand...

Lol, there are a few that I have used that are free. I've had problems with some of them though, so I'm a little more careful about what I download now. This is not to say that I'm not grateful to those who put out free apps, I'm a big supporter of anything that's a JB app.
 
ViViDboarder said:
Lawyered!
Click to expand...

Hahaha. Actually, I am familiar with this article, but as I am limited to responding on my iPhone right now will keep my response brief. This exeptions is in reference to cell phones. It was passed so that when someone changes carriers from say Sprint to Verizon, they could take their cell phone with them and not have to buy a new one for the new carrier. This is in fact why ATT provides unlocks for Blackberry phones.

Anyways, it in no way refers to the process of jailbreaking although people like to try to make it do so. Jailbreaking as we all know is different from unlocking. Although, in the case of the iPhone, it is true you must jailbreak to unlock, unless you buy a factory unlocked phone. :)

This is why jailbreaking is still being argued. Also, FWIW, that exeptions you mention is actually currently up for review and could be reversed, although I will admit it is unlikely.

I am having fun now! :)
 
tiptopp said:
p.s. - when do I stop being a newbie on this forum? How many posts do I need before I lose the 'doesn't really know what he's talking about' tag? (and before anyone replies, I realise that I have to sound as though I know what I'm talking about as well!).
Click to expand...

Lol, just get to 30 posts dude
 
fishmd said:
Anyways, it in no way refers to the process of jailbreaking although people like to try to make it do so. Jailbreaking as we all know is different from unlocking. Although, in the case of the iPhone, it is true you must jailbreak to unlock, unless you buy a factory unlocked phone. :)
Click to expand...

Jailbreaking is not different from unlocking; it is part of the process of unlocking. Rule 37 CFR Part 201 clearly acknowledges that in order to achieve such an unlock it is often necessary to make modifications to the bootloader of a phone. Such modifications are what we call a jailbreak. The only restriction this rule places on the act of modifying a bootloader is one of purpose: it must be done "for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network." If you wanted to argue that jailbreaking for purposes other than unlocking was illegal, you might have a point. But those who rely on a soft unlock for carrier compatibility are surely covered.
 
thelatinist said:
If you wanted to argue that jailbreaking for purposes other than unlocking was illegal, you might have a point. But those who rely on a soft unlock for carrier compatibility are surely covered.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I am jailbroken and not unlocked. As I am with AT&T, I have no reason to be unlocked. I would also venture to guess that the majority of US people who are jailbroken are not unlocked as well, although I don't have the stats to back that up (no one does). We jailbreak to add functionality to the phone. This is in no way "covered" by the exception you cited. This is the reason why this is still before the courts.

And what is more, there are countless comments and threads on MacRumors itself that state to Jailbreak and Unlock are two separate things. They are very much different. If you buy a factory unlocked iPhone, it is not jailbroken and comes with Cydia on it.

I am just trying to point out the falsehood that people commonly perpetuate. To say the jailbreaking is 100% legal is not correct. It is still undetermined.
 
Jailbreak on if you want ..I know I will cont. to do so I am both jailbroke and unlocked and the only way I would go back to AT&T is if they adjust there prices down.......
 
dhlizard said:
This is a hoot and goes right along with this thread. Check it out !

http://www.iphonedownloadblog.com/2010/02/19/apple-store-manager-calls-mall-cops-on-jailbreaker/
Click to expand...

That is a hoot. That Apple manager should pull out his iPad prototype from where the sun don't shine...

In Japan, a huge percentage of AppleStore/Big Elec. store employees are weekend hackers and manga freaks. The standard response to the "JB" word is a mischievous little smile with a finger across the mouth...;)
 
ViViDboarder said:
Not true in the least. Many hackers use FREE tools and release their own tools for FREE. They don't PIRATE them. Savvy?
Click to expand...


Thats what I said, most hackers like to use their tools for free. Whether is be free tools, or pirated tools. Now answer this honestly, would you rather have something given to you for free, or would you want to pay for it? Think of it as Steve Jobs offering you a free iPhone. Its understandable why people want to use pirated software, especially in this economy.
 
pcs are junk said:
Thats what I said, most hackers like to use their tools for free. Whether is be free tools, or pirated tools. Now answer this honestly, would you rather have something given to you for free, or would you want to pay for it? Think of it as Steve Jobs offering you a free iPhone. Its understandable why people want to use pirated software, especially in this economy.
Click to expand...

Analogies comparing software and actual physical goods will always have their flaws, but you could come closer to the actual situation by replacing "Steve Jobs" with "some random guy who passes you on the street while he flees from the cops".

And remind me never to buy a car from your dad.
 
Without getting lost in legal details, for which this forum is useless for, anyway - jailbreaking is not illegal. You break a contract, it is a civil matter. If it was criminal, Cydia and the likes would be spending their time either by going from one court case to the other or already in prison. The management of Psystar is also free.

Stealing digital content, like downloading films via torrent is illegal, of course. I can imagine that the legally tricky bit of jailbreaking is to write the software to make the phone able to run illegally downloaded applications, but that doesn't effect the users.

The morals of jailbreaking? What are the pros and cons, I would ask. I JB-ed my iPhone and I am happy. I can run third party apps simultaneously and I could change the user interface of my device to suit my needs. Besides, it was such a good feeling to do something that I knew the annoying Steve Jobs and his poodles would hate to see. I'm sorry, but no 4x4 apps per page for me and I don't like black screens and turtlenecks!
 
dhlizard said:
Stealing a developer's work product is theft, it's electronic shoplifting. :eek:
Click to expand...

*yawn*

Piracy is way overhyped.... It's just a bunch of teenagers who bother to save 0.99 cents.

People who make money don't bother with the hassle of jailbreaking and just buy the apps.

So the people who have the money do pay for the apps, and the people who don't pirate them. Simple as that.
 
Last word...

Well, I have been thinking further on this over the last couple of weeks, and am happy to report back that I just purchased Lockinfo, having downloaded the upgrade last week and just finished the trial. I still love it, and have found some instructions from ViViDboarder on how to theme without Winterboard (which I didn't like last time I tried it, because it seemed to add a lot of lag to my 3G).

For the sake of £3.50, I now feel pretty silly going down the cracked route for this, given all the hassle and delays in getting upgrades, and shan't be doing it again! I now have a fully-functioning (as far as I'm concerned) iPhone 3G with a number of legally-acquired apps (iTunes/Cydia/Rock) and will be quite happy to wait until the next gen iPhone is released with everything I want included!

Thanks to all for a fascinating discussion.

Tiptopp
 
tiptopp said:
Well, I have been thinking further on this over the last couple of weeks, and am happy to report back that I just purchased Lockinfo, having downloaded the upgrade last week and just finished the trial. I still love it, and have found some instructions from ViViDboarder on how to theme without Winterboard (which I didn't like last time I tried it, because it seemed to add a lot of lag to my 3G).

For the sake of £3.50, I now feel pretty silly going down the cracked route for this, given all the hassle and delays in getting upgrades, and shan't be doing it again! I now have a fully-functioning (as far as I'm concerned) iPhone 3G with a number of legally-acquired apps (iTunes/Cydia/Rock) and will be quite happy to wait until the next gen iPhone is released with everything I want included!

Thanks to all for a fascinating discussion.

Tiptopp
Click to expand...

Glad to have helped!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back