Help the Electronic Frontier Foundation Keep Jailbreaking Legal

[expl0itfinder]

Ha ha...this reminds me of the last time Facebook did a complete overhaul of the user interface. People logged into Facebook to tell all their friends that they hate Facebook!

+1

[sziklassy]

I wonder if the jb devs somehow managed to completely get rid of piracy, ie cracked cydia apps and **********, that apple may embrace jailbreaking? because they'd be losing no money to app hosted by dissident. I heard sometime last year, that saurik was going to block sources of illegal activity..it'd be nice to see some help from apple! maybe not direct help, but stop making it harder to hack the devices! an iPhone without a jb to me is something that I'm not gonna buy. it's too plain, too useless

You can still just sync a cracked app via iTunes itself. Nothing would be solved. Close one repo and another one pops up. Frankly I would hate to have the cydia store be like the appstore in that it takes the ok from the big cheese (Saurik in this case) to get apps and tweaks uploaded.

[keenpois0n]

You can still just sync a cracked app via iTunes itself. Nothing would be solved. Close one repo and another one pops up. Frankly I would hate to have the cydia store be like the appstore in that it takes the ok from the big cheese (Saurik in this case) to get apps and tweaks uploaded.

yeah I know the sense of a 'controller' would be annoying. but I was just saying if piracy was out of the question, why would apple discourage jailbreaking. there's no reason for it - aside from apple not coming up with the idea for. (nowadays every firmware update we don't see new features, we see jb tweaks made stock. hopefully Tim cook isn't as control freak as stevie was and he'll come to his senses.

[Dragonx151]

Unfortunately with all the tools that Cydia does allow: SSH, terminal, iFile, etc... these apps that provide the cracked app capability can be side loaded. Unless there are restrictions put in place by Saurik and the JB devs to not allow access to certain areas of the idevice's files system, it wont stop the pirates from pirating.

Haha I think there's a dev tem that already does that and I believe their name is apple. lmao i agree but isnt that what the whole point of jailbreaking is for? I dont like when people work hard and dont get payed for it (thats why i donated for my JB.) So yes i agree sources need to be blocked that promote piracy but dont block me all together just because of the minority or majority, which ever piracy falls under, after all thats why we fight apple (to access our devices unrestricted)

[ahester57]

I don't find anything wrong with modifying something you already own.

[ScooterComputer]

A hearty "you are welcome" to everybody who commented on my post. I fought pretty hard against the DMCA when it was being passed, even confronting my Senator (Arlen Specter) at a Town Hall meeting that got pretty testy. The biggest problem was that neither the citizenship nor the legislators could grasp what the content companies (copyright holders) were really angling to get. And I specifically used the example of digital shifting DVDs as an illegal activity; Specter went on a rant about how I was for allowing terrorists to crack military encryption. He was/is a moron, but it was an amazing spectacle of ignorance (nay, stupidity).

As I said in my post, I hope that users in the US support both the EFF push to keep Jailbreaking exempted, but ALSO support Exemption Class 10 which calls for an explicit exemption to allow commercial software to be created and distributed to enable content-owning consumers to by-pass the encryption on content with the "fair use" intent of shifting it to different media or transcoding it to different formats for use on their various electronic devices. It is unfair that the copyright holders are able to maintain control of that "right to control 'copying'" through to and including the final user who purchases the content, when previous case law and copyright law specifically upheld and allowed such activity (see the Sound Recording Act of 1971, the Sony Betamax case of 1984, the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, etc). All of that case-law ended with the DMCA. It was an end-run around the citizen's part in the deal of Copyright...and one of the narratives that the content lobby pushes most ardently is that the consumer/citizen has NO PART in Copyright, as though it is a right that is granted to the holder alone. The Constitution, as well as prior common law concepts of "copyright", completely refute that, and clearly show that "copyright"--as a concept--is a bargain between holder and consumer to protect the channel in between: both parties benefit or there is no protection. At this point, there is little evidence that consumers "benefit" from copyright; and any argument of "well they get great content" is a straw man...ultimately they paid dearly for it.