• Your favorite

    Apple

    ,

    iPhone

    ,

    iPad

    ,

    iOS

    ,
    Jailbreak
    , and
    Cydia
    site.
  • Apple Officially Claims Jailbreaking Illegal
    After a year and a half and many millions of iPhones Jailbroken Apple has finally decided to publicly state that they believe jailbreaking is illegal. Here at MMi we do not believe Jailbreaking is illegal for many reasons. While I could list them all Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation which confronts cutting-edge issues defending free speech, privacy, innovation, and consumer rights says it best with his statment:

    "Jailbreaking an iPhone constitutes copyright infringement and a DMCA violation, says Apple in comments filed with the Copyright Office as part of the 2009 DMCA triennial rulemaking. This marks the first formal public statement by Apple about its legal stance on iPhone jailbreaking.
    Apple's iPhone, now the best-selling cellular phone in the U.S., has been designed with restrictions that prevent owners from running applications obtained from sources other than Apple's own iTunes App Store. "Jailbreaking" is the term used for removing these restrictions, thereby liberating your phone from Apple's software "jail." Estimates put the number of iPhone owners who have jailbroken their phones in the hundreds of thousands.

    As part of the 2009 DMCA rulemaking, EFF has asked the Copyright Office to recognize an exemption to the DMCA to permit jailbreaking in order to allow iPhone owners to use their phones with applications that are not available from Apple's store (e.g., turn-by-turn directions, using the iPhone camera for video, laptop tethering).

    Apple's copyright infringement claim starts with the observation that jailbroken iPhones depend on modified versions of Apple's bootloader and operating system software. True enough -- we said as much in our technical white paper describing the jailbreak process. But the courts have long recognized that copying software while reverse engineering is a fair use when done for purposes of fostering interoperability with independently created software, a body of law that Apple conveniently fails to mention.

    As for the DMCA violation, Apple casts its lot with the likes of laser printer makers and garage door opener companies who argue that the DMCA entitles them to block interoperability with anything that hasn't been approved in advance. Apple justifies this by claiming that opening the iPhone to independently created applications will compromise safety, security, reliability, and swing the doors wide for those who want to run pirated software.

    If this sounds like FUD, that's because it is. 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. After all, the culture of tinkering (or hacking, if you prefer) is an important part of our innovation economy.

    Of course, many iPhone owners will be happy to choose solely from the applications that Apple is willing to approve, just like many Ford owners are happy relying exclusively on their local Ford dealer. But if you want to pop the hood, the DMCA surely shouldn't stand in your way."
    This article was originally published in forum thread: Apple Officially Claims Jailbreaking Illegal started by Cody Overcash View original post
    Comments 298 Comments
    1. thetoothfairy's Avatar
      thetoothfairy -
      Quote Originally Posted by NeoNightmareX View Post
      Apple owned the iPhone
      I gave Apple money
      The iPhone is now mine

      I'll do whatever I want to my iPhone and they don't have a say in it at all.
      This is how the law is... once money has exchanged hands... example Apple owned it you paid for it.... Apple can not tell you what you can do with it or can't do with it...... they can only warranty what they want if you jailbreak it or not.....

      Quote Originally Posted by afgracer View Post
      my point of view is...."jealous",-----apple is jealous....

      because...

      1. we could do more with r phones then they take out on there buggy updates lol

      2. dev teams.big boss..etc...doing a better job taking out utilities thats apple cant think of...lol

      3.and plus apple looks at all the stuff that iphone could do jailbroken...and copys it...example jailbroken then (insatller)
      then apple says wow we should do somthing like that too -->and lets call it(app store)

      4.i dont think apple is going to make jailbreaken illegal...they will loose big money....there not that DuMb?
      Apple does not want to give us all what we want because then they would not be able to ever sell another iPhone because it would have everything.....
    1. gunnysir's Avatar
      gunnysir -
      When you have an ego as big as Steve Jobs is you think you can control everything, but what he doesn't realize is the more you squeese the more people will rebel.
    1. bigdrdok's Avatar
      bigdrdok -
      Fuc u apple and at&t bi*ches...i do what the hell i want on my $575 3g 16gb white tmobile iphone! If apple offered everything that cydia did i wouldnt even need to jailbreak it. Ill never buy from the app store and i will continue to get any app for free. HAHAHAHAHAHA!

      MY PRESIDENT IS BLACK!!!!
    1. ultimatexpka's Avatar
      ultimatexpka -
      Quote Originally Posted by NakedFaerie View Post
      Hello Steve Jobs. Your a tosser.



      Its like this.
      Iphone + Jailbreak = sales
      360 + modded firmware = sales
      PS3 + ....nothing = LESS SALES
      Wii + modchip = sales

      So, iPhone + NO JAILBREAK = less sales, crap phone, choose a better phone.

      If they do make jailbreaking illegal you will notice a drop in iphone sales.
      I also think Apple want to make jailbreaking illegal as you can block thier kill apps signal they have.
      They can send out that kill app message as many times to my phone but as long as the block is there they cant do a thing about it. If its not jailbraked then they can delete apps at thier will. That whould be illegal. They will end up removing apps you paid for because they can.

      This is another reason why I will never buy anything Apple in the future.
      I also think with this mentallity from Apple there will be a few MAC users getting PCs in the new future. Why have a company doing that to thier users? Where is the old saying gone "The customer is always right" as it looks like Apple is thinking all its customers are thieves and hackers.

      As 90% if the replies here say and I will too.... F*** You Apple.
      actually for the wii portion its wii = the homebrew channel = sales - games sold <<
    1. boe_dye's Avatar
      boe_dye -
      Quote Originally Posted by NakedFaerie View Post

      I also think with this mentallity from Apple there will be a few MAC users getting PCs in the new future. Why have a company doing that to thier users? Where is the old saying gone "The customer is always right" as it looks like Apple is thinking all its customers are thieves and hackers.

      As 90% if the replies here say and I will too.... F*** You Apple.
      I seriously doubt that very much. Nothing personal to Mac users, but going into an Apple store is like going into this strange cult. Their like Masons who have this strange secret handshake that only the enlightened can grasp.

      Steve Jobs is their De Facto God. They don't care. It's pretty simple.

      Now I'm not talking about the people who go from PC to OS X to Linux etc, I'm talking about the die hard macboys, and I'm talking about the rich kids who are of the elitist mentality that they have a nice prim Mac.

      Those guys are just nuts.

      So I doubt if this making jailbreaking illegal push actually happens (cause remember it hasn't happened, Apple just wants it to happen) you might see a small dip in sales, but not a whole lot.

      Remember when the first iPhone came out, there was no jailbreaking yet, and the amount of people who actually do Jailbreak an iPhone is at the most 1 in 4.
    1. Nimbulan's Avatar
      Nimbulan -
      Modding is a niche that cant be quality controlled.

      Your not the forefront of Apples iPhone sales publicity.
    1. ufook's Avatar
      ufook -
      NaplesBill, I agree. Apple is merely protecting that nice little monopoly they set up for themselves in the form of the App Store. While that model may work for iTunes where you're dealing with artists who can't program, it will never work for software because you're dealing with engineers who will always find workarounds. We can program anything we want for the Mac... why not the iPhone? The real innovation seems to be coming out of Cydia these days, not the 20k crap store. And yeah, I'd love to see them haul Woz off to jail for OMG altering his firmware.

      Lexi
      @ufook
    1. clive.weller's Avatar
      clive.weller -
      Most mobile phone manufacturers do their utmost to add as many facilities as possible. Apple has produced a phone way beyond the capabilities of most others, yet go out of their way not not implement all these goodies and what is worse try to prevent others from doing so. If Apple sat back and really thought hard about what they are doing there would be no need to jailbreak and they woiuld sell even more phones. At the end of the day there is NOTHING secret about software and is there for everyone to use and dress to suit.
    1. sk8er982's Avatar
      sk8er982 -
      If it sooo illegal sue and take me to jail! idiots...
    1. IM_hOuDiNi's Avatar
      IM_hOuDiNi -
      Quote Originally Posted by i pimping View Post
      but you dont see ford complaining when guys customize there cars becouse it only helps sell them when potential ford custumers see what can be done with a standard car
      The best analogue by far! WAKE UP APPLE!
    1. afgracer's Avatar
      afgracer -
      Quote Originally Posted by thetoothfairy View Post
      This is how the law is... once money has exchanged hands... example Apple owned it you paid for it.... Apple can not tell you what you can do with it or can't do with it...... they can only warranty what they want if you jailbreak it or not.....



      Apple does not want to give us all what we want because then they would not be able to ever sell another iPhone because it would have everything.....

      yea but all there doing right now is being greedy...
      and plus if it was not for the jailbrk and unlock....break it down to no gsm unlock,good utilities, and etc....the iphone wouldent be as good as it is now....
    1. SiddallStudios's Avatar
      SiddallStudios -
      I really feel like some of the main things people jailbreak there iPhone for are things that Apple should have done in the very first iPhone, but after two years, two phone models and how ever many updates have still not done.

      Mod my UI - Apple come on, every phone you buy has the ability to atleast change the color scheme on your phone. How can the most advanced phone not have this simple feature. I get tired of looking at a black screen with the same old icons after a few months. This is the main reason I jailbroke my iPhone and iPhone 3g. I am pretty happy with the appstore that they finally came out with.

      Video - This is another thing that just amazes me with the iPhone. The phone comes with 8g minimum, is suppose to be a media powerhouse with audio/video, has a 2megapixel camera and does not record video. Another reason I jailbroke my iPhone and iPhone 3g.

      There are many other good reasons for people to jailbreak there phones, but the bottom line is this:

      After buying 2 iPhones for around $800 and refering two friends to buy iPhones and one of them switch carriers, by the way I am an ATT customer and have been for 8 years, I believe I have the right to customize my equipment any damn way I feel like. I sure as hell would not let Microsoft tell me how to keep my UI or what programs I was "allowed" to have on my PC. Maybe this is why Apple lost the Personal Computer war. Will they lose the Mobile Computer war too?
    1. PorthosPirate's Avatar
      PorthosPirate -
      So many have addressed every piece of this, but one thing remains to be seen:

      EULAs have never been tested in court. There are hundreds of lawyers lined up on both sides of this argument. Can a company put restrictions on the use of a device once the sale is complete? That is the question. My argument would be this:

      If you can enforce restrictions on me once a device is purchased by me (or software), then that means you assume the liability for the use of that device as well.

      Example: You make a computer, you make an operating system. You sell me that operating system. You say you get to control what I do with that computer and operating system. I use that operating system, with the capabilities you built into it, to commit a crime. YOU accept shared liability for what I have done.

      Wouldn't that follow? If you want to claim overlordship of something, then you accept responsibility for it as well.

      Well, it's been proven time and again that this is not the case. You can't sue a car manufacturer for being run down by a car. You can't prosecute a head shop because they sold a bong to the guy that smoked pot with it. etc.

      If they have no liability, then they have no control. Quad Era Demonstratum
    1. cmwade77's Avatar
      cmwade77 -
      The REAL reason that Apple is wanting to crackdown on Jailbreaking is mentioned in this article. I think that this application changed everything for them. I also think that this program is illegal and that Cydia and Installer should both take steps to block it, I think that would go a long way towards appeasing Apple's concerns. There is a difference between jailbreaking the phone and downloading software and illegally stealing software (from whatever distribution channel you choose to get your software from), if you use the software and the Author wants money for it, pay for the right to use it. When that came out, I said that it would cause Apple to go after Jailbreakers if something wasn't done to try to stop it by Cydia and Installer. Perhaps the Devteam could get involved to stop it as well. But there are also tools to help the developers stop it, but that doesn't help for existing Applications. Bottom line is DON'T steal music, software, movies or anything else, stealing only hurts us all in the long run as these companies will go out of business due to a lack of revenue. And now, it's got Apple's attention as well.

      I only mention the article, because I feel that it is relevant to this issue and in case I haven't made myself clear on the matter, I do not condone Pirating software (or music or video) in any shape or form, I do feel that if I buy a DVD, I should have the right to put it on my iPod or watch it any other way that I want, I do not have the right to give it to anyone else, nor should I have that right, the same goes for software, if I buy a windows only program, and I have crossover on my computer, I have the right to run it on my Mac, if I use Parallels and a legal copy of Windows, I have the right to run it on my Mac, before Boot Camp came out, there were ways to run Windows on an Intel Mac, again no one questioned the legality of it, as long as you paid for your copy of Windows. All of these could be considered hacks to the Mac and are perfectly legal, why should the iPhone be any different? I honestly don't think that Jailbreaking is any different than getting non-oem service.

      Now, I even take this as far as saying Apple should be required to provide warranty service on Jailbroken phones, as mentioned, if you modify a car with non-oem parts or get service from somewhere besides the dealer, the manufacturer is still required to honor their warranty on the car (now they may charge you if it's the non-oem part that failed, as it is no longer their part, but everything else must be covered).
    1. tdawg3000's Avatar
      tdawg3000 -
      Quote Originally Posted by MusicBlood17 View Post
      It's my iPod. I paid for it so i can jailbreak it if i want to. Apple overprices their apps and I dont feel like paying for them. Why do they care if we take a risk at screwing up our iPods and iPhones?
      It's our choice so why don't they just leave us be? What exactly are the consequences of having a jailbroken iPod/iPhone anyways?
      jail time mister HAHA (jk)
    1. Luded83's Avatar
      Luded83 -
      Quote Originally Posted by PorthosPirate View Post
      So many have addressed every piece of this, but one thing remains to be seen:

      EULAs have never been tested in court. There are hundreds of lawyers lined up on both sides of this argument. Can a company put restrictions on the use of a device once the sale is complete? That is the question. My argument would be this:

      If you can enforce restrictions on me once a device is purchased by me (or software), then that means you assume the liability for the use of that device as well.

      Example: You make a computer, you make an operating system. You sell me that operating system. You say you get to control what I do with that computer and operating system. I use that operating system, with the capabilities you built into it, to commit a crime. YOU accept shared liability for what I have done.

      Wouldn't that follow? If you want to claim overlordship of something, then you accept responsibility for it as well.

      Well, it's been proven time and again that this is not the case. You can't sue a car manufacturer for being run down by a car. You can't prosecute a head shop because they sold a bong to the guy that smoked pot with it. etc.

      If they have no liability, then they have no control. Quad Era Demonstratum
      Nicely put.
    1. ecd5000's Avatar
      ecd5000 -
      THANK YOU EVERYONE id most likely start firebombing uhhh........ jailbreaking has opened up my phone and my eyes of so many possibilities that can be done with this phone. the only reason apple doesnt like it because they havent figured a way to make money from it even tho it makes the phone 10x better than stock!!
    1. sziklassy's Avatar
      sziklassy -
      Quote Originally Posted by PorthosPirate View Post
      Example: You make a computer, you make an operating system. You sell me that operating system. You say you get to control what I do with that computer and operating system. I use that operating system, with the capabilities you built into it, to commit a crime. YOU accept shared liability for what I have done.
      I suppose something like this could be a valid argument unless the EULA states that the company waives any involvement of any crimes or wrongdoing committed with the use/aid of their product, which I am sure will be added in to EULA's if there is law stating that a EULA is binding and cannot be broken without penalty.

      Quote Originally Posted by ecd5000 View Post
      THANK YOU EVERYONE id most likely start firebombing uhhh........ jailbreaking has opened up my phone and my eyes of so many possibilities that can be done with this phone. the only reason apple doesnt like it because they havent figured a way to make money from it even tho it makes the phone 10x better than stock!!
      Well, they really COULD start making money off it if they provided alot of the apps/features that jailbreaking provides. Think of how much money Apple could make with something as simple as themes and wallpapers. It baffles my mind why Apples hasn't already offered this. A large number of jailbreakers do it simply for the themes anyway.
    1. boe_dye's Avatar
      boe_dye -
      Quote Originally Posted by PorthosPirate View Post
      So many have addressed every piece of this, but one thing remains to be seen:

      EULAs have never been tested in court. There are hundreds of lawyers lined up on both sides of this argument. Can a company put restrictions on the use of a device once the sale is complete? That is the question. My argument would be this:

      If you can enforce restrictions on me once a device is purchased by me (or software), then that means you assume the liability for the use of that device as well.

      Example: You make a computer, you make an operating system. You sell me that operating system. You say you get to control what I do with that computer and operating system. I use that operating system, with the capabilities you built into it, to commit a crime. YOU accept shared liability for what I have done.

      Wouldn't that follow? If you want to claim overlordship of something, then you accept responsibility for it as well.

      Well, it's been proven time and again that this is not the case. You can't sue a car manufacturer for being run down by a car. You can't prosecute a head shop because they sold a bong to the guy that smoked pot with it. etc.

      If they have no liability, then they have no control. Quad Era Demonstratum
      Weeeel, that is not entirely true.

      In the case of Firearms, there have been people who have gone after the Firearms manufacturer for being liable that a gun they produced killed a loved one.

      And then there is the case of the class action lawsuit going after the cigarette companies, even AFTER there was a stupid warning label.

      Simply put, you can sue anyone for any reason. Apple couldn't take the case the criminal court, but instead would take it to civil court. And there is a difference.

      In criminal court, you are innocent until proven guilty. Everyone knows that.

      However in Civil Court, (like the judge judey/joe/whatever) all that needs to be made is a claim and you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

      Now if Apple get's it's way it will suddenly have the protection and support of the Office of Copyright Protection. And that in and of itself would be really bad because they wouldn't even need to spend a dime suing whomever they pointed a finger at because it would be a the United States Government suing you.
    1. confucious's Avatar
      confucious -
      Quote Originally Posted by boe_dye View Post
      because it would be a the United States Government suing you.
      I know the UK government seems to just bend over and take whatever the US government throws at it so I look forward to lots of UK citizens being extradited to the US soon