• Your favorite

    Apple

    ,

    iPhone

    ,

    iPad

    ,

    iOS

    ,
    Jailbreak
    , and
    Cydia
    site.
  • Why Jailbreak Matters, and What Jailbreak Isn't


    The Copyright Office and Librarian of Congress today officially sanctioned jailbreaking the iPhone, and while they were at it also put their pen to paper approving unlocking the device. Apple originally weighed in on this issue in February of 2009.

    I've been reading the various news coverage (including ours) around this story, and it seems a good idea to define why jailbreaking is important, why the government agrees, and what jailbreaking isn't. This article will be on the long side, as I'd like to address the point fairly fully.

    At the end of the article I'll reference some of the big points from the official filing. But let's get back to the original question - why does jailbreak matter?

    Running ModMyi.com, my daily conversations with people (frickin' EVERYONE has an iPhone) always wind up turning to jailbreak, and there's the single inevitable question - "well why should I jailbreak?" A lot of "apps" come up - MyWi, WinterBoard, Notifier, Intelliscreen, SBSettings... which is what they're usually asking. Those are reasons TO jailbreak, though, not reasons FOR jailbreak to be legal and important. To answer that question, we need to take a look at what jailbreaking is.

    At it's core, jailbreaking is not an app, it's not Cydia, it's one simple thing - having unrestricted write access to your device. In more technical terms, it's having root access. In the Android scene, it's actually called rooting your device.

    So what's the big deal you ask? Maybe you're not a hacker, or even a "hobbyist" or "enthusiast" - that's fine. Maybe you don't care about having any access at all to your device - it does everything you need already. You don't want to jailbreak, and you never will. That's fine, and for many, true. My iPhone 4 isn't jailbroken yet, and it's been handling itself great - of course there's tons of jailbreak apps I miss (Notifier, Tlert, MyWi, WinterBoard, iFile, and OpenSSH/SSL being some of the biggest). But if I /want/ to modify my device, which I have purchased and own outright, for completely legal activities, enhancing the original purpose of the device (a "smartphone") - it should be legal. Whether I do so or not should remain wholly my choice.

    This precedent is in nearly every computer or "smart" gadget on the market. When you go down to Best Buy and purchase Sony or Toshiba's latest laptop, the Best Buy people don't tell you "now this has Windows, you can install any program Microsoft sells through their store here. Anything else is illegal." Or from Sony/Toshiba/whomever's store. You're free to install any Windows-compatible app you'd like to. You're not infringing any copyright by installing third-party software on your computer, you're simply installing third-party software. The same can be said even of Apple's desktop/laptop operating system, OS X. There is none of this "purchasing software from anywhere but us is illegal" talk anywhere but in the iOS field. Heck, you can even put programs on your Texas Instruments graphing calculator. (EDIT: comex tells me TI calcs now have signing keys... sigh).

    Many people seem to associate "jailbreaking" with "iPhone piracy." This is a flawed view. Piracy IS illegal, has been clearly defined as such legally for years, and is not at all synonymous with jailbreaking. Take ModMyi.com as a case study - we have over 675,000 members, the vast majority of whom have jailbroken one or more iDevices, and we strictly forbid any talk, linking, or mention of pirated apps. I personally have had a jailbroken iPhone longer than nearly anyone here (ModMyi actually created the first ever iPhone "theme"), and I have never pirated an iPhone app. It has always been our standpoint piracy is 100% illegal, and is rude on top of that. Devs spend days and weeks building $2 and $5 apps - if you want them enough to install them, you should pay for them.

    Another false argument many people seem to use to argue against jailbreaking is security. I've seen comments all over opposing jailbreak by saying "well these sort of things can bring down a cell network." Or "what if they install a virus." Those activities are also illegal. In fact, any hacker who has root access to an iPhone also has (just as every single one of us does, out of the box) root access to any Mac they purchase, and could do just as much damage from their laptop as they could from an iPhone. More, perhaps. Restricting access to ALL third party software is not a valid security tactic, and in any other OS would be laughable - building a more secure OS is the answer. The only reason it's been questionable this long with the iPhone is a mobile operating system this capable and robust has never been this widespread. We're in new territory. If Microsoft were to suddenly require all programs in Windows to be purchased/sold ONLY through Micorosoft's own fully independent arbitrary storefront, pundits would be up in arms.

    The App Store is a thriving market, and while it's profitability may not be as high as you think, the App Store is a huge driver of hardware sales, which contribute largely to Apple's record profits and revenues, including the $3.25 billion in profit they had this past quarter of $15.7 billion in revenue. You would think Apple would see jailbreaking as a continued push for hardware sales (their highest profit) rather than a threat to it. Even aside from that, jailbreaking and third-party apps can co-exist peacefully with the App Store just as well as the version of Coda I purchased directly from Panic works fine side by side with the version of iLife I purchased through Apple.

    I stress again - illegal activity done by means of jailbreak is and should be just as illegal and prosecutable as illegal activity done from ANY device, including one's laptop/desktop. This has never been put in question, and to equate the two is to speak ignorantly.

    I'll pull some content from the official ruling below. What's your take on this?


    Here's Apple's argument to the government against the jailbreaking case (from the .pdf linked to here under "For the full rulemaking order:"):

    Apple responded that jailbreaking by purchasers of the iPhone is a violation of the prohibition against circumvention of access controls. It stated that its validation system is necessary to protect consumers and Apple from harm. Apple further contended that modifying Apple's operating system constituted the creation of an infringing derivative work. Specifically, Apple argued that because purchasers of an iPhone are licensees, not owners, of the computer programs contained on the iPhone, Section 117 of the Copyright Act is inapplicable as an exemption to the adaptation right. Apple further argued that the fair use defense codified in 107 would not apply to jailbreaking activity under the statutory factors.

    Based on the record, the Register has determined that the encryption and authentication processes on the iPhone's computer programs are technological measures that control access to the copyrighted work (the firmware) for purposes of 1201(a)(1). Moreover, the Register finds that the evidence supports the contention that a technological protection measure is adversely affecting adding applications to the iPhone. The critical question is whether jailbreaking an iPhone in order to add applications to the phone constitutes a noninfringing use.
    There's quite a lot of content in the official ruling, but when we get to the meat of the ruling, it's this:

    Under the first factor in Section 107, it appears fair to say that the purpose and character of the modification of the operating system is to engage in a private, noncommercial use intended to add functionality to a device owned by the person making the modification, albeit beyond what Apple has determined to be acceptable. The user is not engaging in any commercial exploitation of the firmware, at least not when the jailbreaking is done for the user's own private use of the device.

    The fact that the person engaging in jailbreaking is doing so in order to use Apple's firmware on the device that it was designed to operate, which the jailbreaking user owns, and to use it for precisely the purpose for which it was designed (but for the fact that it has been modified to run applications not approved by Apple) favors a finding that the purpose and character of the use is innocuous at worst and beneficial at best. Apple's objections to the installation and use of unapproved applications appears to have nothing to do with its interests as the owner of copyrights in the computer programs embodied in the iPhone, and running the unapproved applications has no adverse effect on those interests. Rather, Apple's objections relate to its interests as a manufacturer and distributor of a device, the iPhone.

    Moreover, Congress has determined that reverse engineering for the purpose of making computer programs interoperable is desirable when certain conditions are met, and has crafted a specific exemption from Section 1201(a)'s prohibition on circumvention in such cases. While an iPhone owner who jailbreaks does not fall within the four corners of the statutory exemption in Section 1201(f), the fact that he or she is engaging in jailbreaking in order to make the iPhone's firmware interoperable with an application specially created for the iPhone suggests that the purpose and character of the use are favored.

    Turning to the second fair use factor, it is customary for operating systems functional works to enable third party programs to interoperate with them. It does not and should not infringe any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner to run an application program on a computer over the objections of the owner of the copyright in the computer's operating system. Thus, if Apple sought to restrict the computer programs that could be run on its computers, there would be no basis for copyright law to assist Apple in protecting its restrictive business model. The second factor decisively favors a finding of fair use.

    Turning to the third factor, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, EFF admitted that because the Apple firmware is necessary in order to operate the iPhone, it is necessary for individuals who jailbreak their phones to reuse the vast majority of the original firmware. However, the amount of the copyrighted work modified in a typical jailbreaking scenario is fewer than 50 bytes of code out of more than 8 million bytes, or approximately 1/160,000 of the copyrighted work as a whole. Where the alleged infringement consists of the making of an unauthorized derivative work, and the only modifications are so de minimis, the fact that iPhone users are using almost the entire iPhone firmware for the purpose for which it was provided to them by Apple undermines the significance of this factor. While the third factor arguably disfavors a fair use finding, the weight to be given to it under the circumstances is slight.

    Addressing the fourth factor, the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work, EFF asserted that the firmware has no independent economic value, pointing out that the iPhone firmware is not sold separately, but is simply included when one purchases an iPhone. EFF also argued that the ability to lawfully jailbreak a phone will increase, not decrease, overall sales of the phones because users will know that by jailbreaking, they can take advantage of a wider array of third party applications.

    Apple responded that unauthorized uses diminish the value of the copyrighted works to Apple. However, Apple is not concerned that the practice of jailbreaking will displace sales of its firmware or of iPhones; indeed, since one cannot engage in that practice unless one has acquired an iPhone, it would be difficult to make that argument. Rather, the harm that Apple fears is harm to its reputation. Apple is concerned that jailbreaking will breach the integrity of the iPhone's ecosystem. The Register concludes that such alleged adverse effects are not in the nature of the harm that the fourth fair use factor is intended to address.
    (NOTE: on 7/27/10 1:57 PM this article was edited slightly, purely for grammatical reasons)
    This article was originally published in forum thread: Why Jailbreak Matters, and What Jailbreak Isn't started by Kyle Matthews View original post
    Comments 123 Comments
    1. mr_motta1989's Avatar
      mr_motta1989 -
      awesome article
    1. Leo_N's Avatar
      Leo_N -
      Frankly, if jailbreaking weren't around, I would never have bought an iPhone. The additional customization and control are what put me over the edge to buy my first one.
    1. sziklassy's Avatar
      sziklassy -
      Quote Originally Posted by confucious View Post
      Good post

      [Edit]Just as I finished typing this I went back to Twitter toi find MN had retweeted the post about this article [/Edit]



      Why? My T-mobile account specifically allows tethering - if I wanted to do it I would use MyWi. The program itself is perfectly legal, how people use it, not necessarily so, but that could be said about a lot of things.
      Ok, so I should have added, for the US. We all know that the majority of users using it are in the US to get around their contracts. I thought it was pretty clear that this was implied, but I guess not...

      If a program is used solely for getting around paying for a srvice (which in the US, it is), it would be considered illegal. Perhaps not in the UK, or anywhere else (and again I do NOT agree with the way things are here), but that still doesn't make it legally just.
    1. zphone's Avatar
      zphone -
      Quote Originally Posted by Leo_N View Post
      Frankly, if jailbreaking weren't around, I would never have bought an iPhone. The additional customization and control are what put me over the edge to buy my first one.
      i agree.. without the jailbreaks. i would've gone to other handsets that are open to customizations (themes, tones, etc), now im on my 4th iphone and patiently waiting for the next JB
    1. sziklassy's Avatar
      sziklassy -
      Quote Originally Posted by peu View Post
      You are making a common mistake, mixing fair use with commercial interests, its in the commercial interest of ATT to charge you extra for bandwidth used for other devices, but, they are not giving you that bandwidth for free, they are charging you.
      So its the same as jailbreaking the device: its yours (its your bandwidth paid month by month), you can jailbreak it (you can use bandwidth for whatever you want) I think you know the drill...

      And on an unrelated view of things:

      what would happen now that is not illegal to jailbreak, if one appears with a problem at a genius bar with a jailbroken device?

      Will they refuse service?
      No, I am really not confusing anything. If I was, ATT would be forced to NOT charge for said extra bandwidth. You are paying for said bandwidth to be consumed by YOUR IPHONE, not your laptop, pc, or whatever other devices you have. Read the contract...

      Here is a copy and paste...
      2) WIRELESS DATA SERVICE TERMS AND CONDITIONS (applies to all customers)

      I. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO AT&T'S WIRELESS DATA SERVICES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, FEATURES THAT MAY BE USED WITH WIRELESS DATA SERVICES AND WIRELESS CONTENT.

      General Requirements: AT&T provides wireless data services, including but not limited to, features that may be used with wireless data services and wireless content and applications ("Services"). The absolute capacity of the wireless data network is limited. Accordingly, service is only provided for prescribed purposes and pricing for Data Services is device dependent and based on the transmit and receive capacity of each device. A pricing plan designated for one type of device may not be used with another device. Some devices or plans may require you to subscribe to data plan. If AT&T determines that you are not subscribed to the required plan(s), AT&T reserves the right to switch you to the required plan or plans and bill you the appropriate monthly fee. The Services may be subject to credit approval. An activation fee of up to $36 may apply to each new data line. Compatible data-enabled wireless device required.

      From here... http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-pho...terms.jsp#data
    1. jdmss1's Avatar
      jdmss1 -
      Mine is JB, and I have more apps on it that I purchased from the appstore AFTER I JB, than I have apps i got from Cydia or Rock....
    1. bobright's Avatar
      bobright -
      If JB wasn't possible id simply own a iPod touch for music purposes and own a different phone.
    1. chrisrotolo's Avatar
      chrisrotolo -
      I believe tethering is addressed somewhere in the fine print in ATT's contract agreement especially for unlimited data smartphones
    1. awesomeSlayer's Avatar
      awesomeSlayer -
      Good argument. It has many valid points.

      That's why I don't want jailbreaking to spread like wildfire. People will just take advantage of piracy. That's why I don't really tell people how to jailbreak and the sources of piracy.
    1. can7's Avatar
      can7 -
      great read great article
    1. ecd5000's Avatar
      ecd5000 -
      this is a great article. most of the features that 4.0 has and refined since the early days came from jailbreaking. so why is apple making such a big deal out of it when they are basically revamping something someone already did for the iphone when they should be saying thanks!
    1. floppy_joe's Avatar
      floppy_joe -
      This is fortunate news. I winder though, as many people are fond if saying, "jailbreaking allows you to use the full ability of the device that you paid for". How much was the price tag for that device based on apples intended use of it? In other words we paid 600 for an apple iPhone with controlled access to apples content. Same reason a jb iPhone goes for more on eBay, it's worth more, so the price tag will go up. Luckily there is competition. Little good ever comes out of court rulings and new policies. I think (luckily for us) that apple just needs better attorneys or arguers. The best thing jobs ever said is "you don't like it, don't buy it". Apple shrugged.
    1. Modifiedz's Avatar
      Modifiedz -
      Everyone needs to read this. Good explaining. There is another statement from Apple about this and it says "Jailbreaking degrades our users experience". That makes no sence at all. It's made to give us the best experience possible on a device.
      Go ahead and ask Steve Jobs what he means by this on his iPhone. TextFree SMS is [email protected] I have gotten a response from him using this contact info. I don't know if it's really Steve or his staff.
    1. LSZ33's Avatar
      LSZ33 -
      Wow, great read Kyle. This community has grown so much in the 3 yrs or so that it's been around. For the old school members, remember when it used to be called "modmyiphone" then apple forced the change to "modmyifone" to now "modmyi"? I originally bought the 1st gen iPhone because it combined my smartphone & iPod and lightened my pockets. When jailbreaking became available, it made it the phone much better and made me inseparable with the iPhone. Thanks for making "the experience" even better.
    1. rhekt's Avatar
      rhekt -
      Cydia in the AppStore perhaps? Allthough a terrific battle won. This does take away the whole mystique and challenge that made jailbreaking fun.
    1. Harvey94's Avatar
      Harvey94 -
      Great article and 100% agree. Here is your new 500 iPhone sir, oh but sir you can only do with it what we tell you and only buy things for it from us!!! Should that not be the illegal part?

      If you enjoy an iPhone app please buy it

      A word to apple, it's obvious people love your designs, equipment, passion to create, be better, just leave the rules out please.
    1. niceshades's Avatar
      niceshades -
      i sorta already knew all of this from the start of jailbreaking and when all of that "this is illegal!" stuff came up i just laughed
    1. Imahottguy's Avatar
      Imahottguy -
      Great read, Kyle. One might even say it was, Poetic. I'm glad that those idiots in Washington were able to get one thing right . We all know this won't change Apple's stance on the subject, but at least the cops won't seize my computers now when they catch wind of all the jailbreak contra ban it has on it. Glad to see a post from the master!
    1. cory's Avatar
      cory -
      Does this mean that someone can come up with a plug-in so that iTunes will sync the 3rd party apps?
    1. rocky5's Avatar
      rocky5 -
      Quote Originally Posted by Leo_N View Post
      Frankly, if jailbreaking weren't around, I would never have bought an iPhone. The additional customization and control are what put me over the edge to buy my first one.
      This is exactly why I own purchased an ipot ,iPhone 3G and a 3GS, if JB's went about I wouldn't have spend hundreds of pounds on them.

      This iPhone I have now 3GS is the last one I will be buying, apple will eventually stop the JB and when they do only apple butters will buy the device.

      Been playing with my m8s htc desire and am liking it alot super responsive screen and lovely colours they just pop out at you. Only thing is I will miss the games and all the stuff I have purchased on the AppStore (a lot of money) and cydia (about 70+ total)

      How much would I get for a mint condition 3GS 16gb White with two cases, telescope (for super close pics) two pairs of apple head phones never used also USB cable never used cleaning cloth never used and original 4.26.0 basband and able to restore to any firmware from 3.0 to 4.0. Also it's unlocked I paid O2 (there terms and conditions were flawed lol so they had no choice but to unlock it)