[LINK] Jailbreaking

[Richard Chirgwin]

Craig,

Jailbreaking isn't a criminal act, but it is a breach of the license. 
Now, those license terms may be objectionable, but the answer is not to 
buy the product (which is also why I don't have a Kindle). 

I doubt that the locking of iPhones would play in a competition sense, 
because there are two arguments that competition still exists.

1. If you want to run an application that iPhone won't run, don't buy 
the iPhone, buy something else; and
2. If you buy the iPhone, you do so presumably (a very large 
presumption, I know) knowing that Apple only allows approved 
applications to run on the iPhone.
3. There are far more "permitted" applications than banned apps.

RC

Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 03:00:13PM +1100, Ivan Trundle wrote:
>   
>> On 17/02/2010, at 12:36 PM, Marghanita da Cruz wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> what does Jailbroken mean
>>>       
>> iPhone OS is a locked-down ecosystem out of the box, and
>> 'jailbreaking' is the (illegal) process of hacking the OS to allow
>>     
>                         ^^^^^^^^^
>
> ahem.  PERFECTLY LEGAL process of enabling the use of hardware you have
> purchased to suit your particular needs.
>
>   
>> code not authorised by Apple to run on the device.
>>     
>
> which is the entire point of jailbreaking an iphone - some people want
> to run software that doesn't come from Apple or through their approvals
> process.
>
> IMO, any attempt by Apple to prevent is a breach of Australia's
> anti-competition laws and should be closely monitored, investigated, and
> prosecuted by the ACCC.
>
>
>   
>> It's also the main way of allowing people to load stolen apps on their
>> phone or iPod, or
>>     
>
> "stolen apps" is loaded, emotional and deceptively misleading
> terminology.  and flat-out wrong.
>
> the phrase you are looking for is "copyright infringement". not "steal"
> or "stolen".
>
> installing infringing copies of a program may be in breach of various
> civil and even criminal laws, but jailbreaking is not in itself illegal
> as there are numerous legal and non-infringing reasons for doing it.
>
>
>   
>> to install applications which have not been vetted by Apple's control
>> process.
>>     
>
> again, that's the entire point.
>
> Apple have a habit of refusing (or revoking) applications which conflict
> with their own business plans or which their partners don't like
> (e.g. VOIP apps were banned until recently due to their partnership with
> AT&T in the US)
>
> Apple do not have the right to dictate what you do with the hardware
> you have purchased.
>
>
>   
>> And in places where phones are locked to a carrier, it's a way of
>> unlocking them and freeing them from being tied to a carrier.
>>     
>
> there's nothing wrong with unlocking phones. as long as you're keeping
> up your side of the contract (e.g. by paying it regularly) or are
> willing to pay out the remainder of the contract, then the telco
> has nothing to complain about.
>
> even if you don't keep up your side of the contract, that's a matter for
> them to chase up through the usual processes (debt collectors, court)
> and is not a valid excuse for them to lock the phone.
>
> some telcos seemingly have no problem with that and either sell unlocked
> phones or will unlock a phone on request (sometimes for a small fee,
> sometimes for free if you have passed their minimum-spend amount for
> that phone).
>
> IMO, just as with apple's App store monopoloy, locking phones to a
> carrier is anti-competitive and should be prosecued by the ACCC.
>
>   
>> Apple have, over the years, found ways to inhibit jailbreaking, but in
>> general, the hackers are one small half step ahead. AS with most phone
>> OS'es, the general path has been via privilege escalation.
>>
>> Apple is disputing the exemptions in the Digital Millennium Copyright
>> Act which make the legality of jailbreaking unclear, suggesting that
>> their copyright is being infringed: no decision is likely until later
>> this year.
>>     
>
> then why the hell are you calling it illegal?
>
> Apple has made an assertion (and one which is absurd - jailbreaking
> a phone does not in itself infringe their copyright), it hasn't been
> tested in court, and no decision is likely until at least later this
> year, yet you are somehow able to call jailbreaking illegal?
>
>
>   
>> Apple have also found ways to block particular hackers from using the
>> Apple Apps store,
>>     
>
> they recently cancelled the app store accounts of at least two developers
> who had contributed to jailbreaking efforts.
>
> it's Apple who are behaving illegally here.  They've certainly breached
> the consumer rights of those individuals.
>
>   
>> and are also seeking to employ experts in the field to prevent further
>> jailbreaking with future OS revisions. One such (recently introduced)
>> method is to prevent older copies of the OS to be stored on your
>> computer (so there is no turning back once an update is applied) and
>> to bundle firmware updates so as to fix existing loopholes, but which
>> inhibit the use of jailbreaking routines.
>>     
>
> anti-features like that will eventually kill the iphone and other
> devices that use them. and good riddance. the world doesn't need crap
> like that.
>
> esp. when open alternatives like android phones become readily
> available.
>
> maybe apple will wake up when the smart-phone market is taken away from
> them by open competition.
>
>
>   
>> The numbers of jailbroken phones is incredibly small (estimated to be
>> less than 5%). However, people in the jailbroken community often quote
>> (unsubstantiated) figures of non-Apple community app downloads (i.e.
>> jailbroken apps) in half-million units. I am unable to verify these
>> numbers, yet I have a personal interest as an app developer.
>>     
>            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> of course.  there had to be a huge element of self-interest in your
> false statements about the legality of jailbreaking.
>
> and before you whine "but some people might 'steal' my software", just
> remember that nobody owes you a living. your desire to make a profit
> does not overide other people's rights. just as i have no right to
> kneecap people walking past my house ("because some of them might be
> burglars"), you do not have the right to criminalise perfectly normal
> and legit behaviour like jailbreaking an iphone, nor do you (or Apple)
> have the right to cripple/break their property.
>
>
>
>   
>> The reasons for people to jailbreak their OS are varied, but it is
>> now mostly to run stolen (er, 'pirated') apps. 
>>     
>
> actually, the main reason why people jailbreak their iphones (and other
> locked devices) is exactly the same as why i haven't bought an iphone
> and am waiting for google's nexus one or some other open phone: i
> don't want apple, or google, or any company, telling me what i can and
> can't do with hardware i have purchased. i don't want them installing
> "updates"(*) that break some function or feature or app that they
> disapprove of for any reason. i don't want them to have the ability
> to install spyware to monitor my usage and movement (and certainly
> not without me having the ability to know about it AND be able to
> disable/delete it).
>
> many (most?) are like me and have exactly as much interest in
> "pirating"(**) iphone apps as they do in pirating Windows or OS X apps -
> i.e. absolutely none. as a general rule(***), i don't want proprietary
> apps at any price, including $0 - whether legitimately free, or pirated.
> I want GPL or other FOSS apps from a multitude of sources.
>
>
>
> (*) IMO they should face criminal charges for these acts of sabotage and
> vandalism. they are deliberately breaking a device belonging to their
> customer. there is precedent too, sony lost their court case over the
> rootkit they installed on Windows machines with their DRM-protected CDs
> (which, of course, didn't protect the music at all. it just disabled
> anti-virus software and created back-doors for malware).
>
> (**) "pirating" is misleading propaganda terminology, i know, but ICBF
> writing some convoluted variation of "infringe copyright". i use it now
> only with the disclaimer that it's a false, misleading, and defamatory
> term to use to describe the act of infringing copyright. blame the
> brainwashers/memetic-engineers of the copyright maximalist lobby.
>
>
> (**) i make an exception for good quality games. wine has become quite
> good in the last year or so, capable of playing many windows games
> without problem. i've spent well over $200 on games from valve/steam
> since the new year (steam had a fantastic sale btwn xmas and NY, 50-90%
> off all games). most of them work fine on wine. some don't. i knew i was
> gambling when i bought them...and eventually they will work on wine and
> i'll get to play them.
>
>
>
>   
>> Initially, it was to work around some of the limitations of the OS
>> generally, and to use APIs that Apple won't permit to be used (for
>> various reasons, mostly altruistic), or to run apps which Apple would
>> not allow. These days,
>>     
>
> that's still the reason. and always will be.
>
> anti-features will *always* provide motivation for someone to remove
> them.
>  
>
> craig
>
>