[LINK] Jailbreaking

[Craig Sanders]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 05:58:53PM +1100, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
> 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).         

if i buy an iphone or a kindle or any other device, then i *bought* it.
I did NOT *license* it.

i can then do what i want with it. i can use it, i can hack it, i can
pull it to pieces and re-use the parts, i can paint it pink, and i can
put the damn thing in a blender if i like.

and the manufacturer has NO SAY WHATSOEVER in the matter. the device is
not their property any more, because they sold it to me.

mostly, though, i'm inclined not to buy such things. i'd rather buy
things that don't make it difficult to do what i want with my own
property. this is pure pragmatism, not any kind of concession that it
would be wrong for me to use my own iphone/kindle/whatever in whatever
way i choose.


be careful of the propaganda memes that you uncritically accept. or do
you really think that buying something is just renting and "licensing"
it?

> 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.

irrelevant.

locked devices are an attempt to create and enforce a monopoly.

locking devices is an anti-feature, the sole purpose of which is
to infringe the property rights of the purchaser.


craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>