Apple fights iPhone unlocking (again)
Wants jailbreakers jailable
Apple has told the US Copyright Office that jailbreaking an iPhone should be illegal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
Apple's defense of its practice of locking down the iPhone to software and services provided only by itself and its partner AT&T came in response to petitions for DMCA exemptions that were proposed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in December 2008.
One of EFF's petitions (PDF), as the digital freedom-fighters explained, was in support of "Cell phone owners who want to 'jailbreak' their phones in order to use applications of their choosing (e.g., iPhone owners who want apps from sources other than the iTunes App Store)."
Apple, as should come as no surprise, disagrees.
In their 27-page filing (PDF) with the Copyright Office, Apple argues against the anti-jailbreaking exemption "because it will destroy the technological protection of Apple's key copyrighted computer programs in the iPhone device itself and of copyrighted content owned by Apple that plays on the iPhone, resulting in copyright infringement, potential damage to the device and other potential harmful physical effects, adverse effects on the functioning of the device, and breach of contract."
The filing goes on the say that the exemption's provisions "amount to an attack on Apple’s particular business choices with respect to the design of the iPhone mobile computing platform and the strategy for delivering applications software for the iPhone through the iPhone App Store," and that "Congress did not envision the DMCA exemption process as a forum for economic restructuring of business models."
EFF, as should come as no surprise, disagrees.
In their mildly mocking reponse to Apple's filing, EFF contends that "One need only transpose Apple's arguments to the world of automobiles to recognize their absurdity. Sure, GM might tell us that, for our own safety, all servicing should be done by an authorized GM dealer using only genuine GM parts. Toyota might say that swapping your engine could reduce the reliability of your car. And Mazda could say that those who throw a supercharger on their Miatas frequently exceed the legal speed limit.
"But we'd never accept this corporate paternalism as a justification for welding every car hood shut and imposing legal liability on car buffs tinkering in their garages."
No matter with which side you may agree, one thing is undeniable: The proverbial cat is out of the proverbial bag. Since seemingly mere moments after the iPhone was first released, each time Apple upgrades its firmware to disable current jailbreaking software an enterprising hacker finds a new way to open up the iPhone in a matter of days.
Witness, for example, the most-recent of these back-and-forth exchanges: An iPhone Software 2.2.1 jailbreak appeared on January 30; Apple released the jailbreak-breaking 2.2.1 update only three days earlier.
Jailbreaking will continue whether or not the US Copyright Office grants the EFF's petitions and allows users to legally open their iPhone to third-party apps and non-AT&T carriers.
The only difference will be whether jailbreakers will look over their shoulders before tinkering under their iPhones' hoods. ®
Where that icon that means "my cat can put up a better reasoned argument" ?
Then why if thats the case (see Time Bandits)
How do all the other phone manufacturers using Symbian or Windows Mobile or google for that matter survive potential liability claims, when they allow you to install your own apps (including flashlight apps).
God alone knows how computer manufactures survive such a horrible crime as users installing their own apps & system utils
You really have put no thought into your arguements have you ?
Apple simply want all the revinue for themselves, pure and simple. If thats fine for you then great.
For some of us we object to being branded criminals. I'm not interested in Apples OS, I'd like to replace the OS in my iPod touch with something like QNX. So I have a small networked device which I can use for my own purposes
Rolf if you understand the difference between license & copyright then why did you say
"Let's say you buy the educational version of some software then use it to run your business. You're breaching copyright, even though you legally bought the software, because you're breaching the license terms."
Also, I forgot to put this with my other reply. There is a big difference between encouraging users to mod something and discouraging it. And that I think is the key difference.
I have Palm Treo. Palm has said quite clearly, we arent responsible for anything you put on your device thats not ours. You can put whatever you want on it, but we are not responsible.
Thats sensible. Its saying, the choice is the users.
What Apple is saying, is that the user has no choice. You either buy apps for your phone from apple... or not at all. I feel Apple is doing this for money. After all if you can only run aps they allow, then get a nice chuck of change off each software sale. But if anyone can develope and run aps... well then... there goes their ability to get a piece of the action.
I went back and read your original post... you said: "If Apple were to implicitly endorse running unapproved software by not defending this case then as the manufacturer they could potentially open themselves up to all sorts of litigation." Again... you're saying if apple were to endorse this stuff. They dont have to endorse it, they could simply allow it and leave the responsibility with the user, like most other companies do.
Endorsing modification is totally different than allowing it. The former is encouraging it... the latter is just understanding that it will happen.
I understand what you're saying about car modifications. Most car companies look at it very simply. they say "If you modify the car from factory specs, you void your warranty". They dont tell you NOT to do mods. They just tell you if you do, your responsible. While some auto companies embrace the aftermark industry, others just ignore it.
What Apple is doing is the opposite. They are trying to prosecute people who are moding their phone. So your claim about Apple being liable if the user messes something up and cant dial 911 or their battery blows up is just silly. Apple cannot be held liable for the actions of someone using their product, no more than Sony can be liable for copyright infringement or any other crime I commit with my Viao Laptop. What apple is doing on the iphone would never fly with a Mac computer, or any other computer. As someone said if MS tried to jail people for loading a non MS product on their computer... MS would be ripped to pieces by the justice system. But when Apple tries to do it on their Phones... people try to defend their actions.
I should have the right to install anything I want on my phone without apple doing a remote uninstall against my wishes. This is purely communist control and if they can remove apps without my approval then i would call this ability akin to a trojan and or spyware that needs to be removed from the iphone. What if I wanted my wife as my wallpaper and then down the road they decide to remove wallpaer functionality. No way! My first goal would be to disable their remove ability into my iphone.
License vs copyright
"Can you not understand that license terms and copyright are different, it really isn't that hard to understand"
I understand PERFECTLY what the difference is. Copyright says you can't copy something, a license says you can. You need a license to copy something you didn't create yourself.
As for Apple using liability as an excuse to claim money, they're not as far as I know. I don't think they actually used that argument, it's purely speculation on my part as possibly being one reason why they need to defend this case. You mention car modifications, but if a manufacturer implicitly or explicity approves of you making modifications by saying "sure, go ahead and tweak it how you want, here's how adjust the braking system" and then your modification causes an accident you just know someone is going to sue the manufacturer. They've got no option but to make it clear in the strongest terms you not supposed to that.