EFF defends the right to jailbreak iPhones

[bascule]

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...cumvention.ars

I love the EFF! Apple's stance on jailbreaking iPhones is completely retarded, but not entirely unexpected:

Whatever you think of the merits of Apple's system, the company claims that the exemption challenge fails for one key reason: the uses that are sought of its DRM-protected firmware and bootloader do in fact infringe its copyright. "Here, the uses of the class of works that would result from the proposed exemption are infringing, namely, the creation of unauthorized derivative versions of Apple's copyrighted bootloader and iPhone operating system software," writes Apple. "This fact alone must result in denial of the exemption."

This is a really strange argument. Apple is effectively asserting it is NOT fair use to make derivative versions of their software for personal use.

But, iTunes makes derivative versions of copyrighted works for personal use. iTunes will happily take your CDs and make AAC/MP3 versions of the original work for you. You're then free to take those files, build a new playlist, and burn yourself a mix CD.

However, for some reason it's illegal to download Apple's iPhone software image, run it through a tool, and flash that onto your phone... using iTunes. WTF?

As this submission will demonstrate, the evidence shows that a business model in which handsets can be widely jailbroken with the attendant problems that result would in fact hinder the creation and distribution of creative works for the platform."

Here's a quick survey of the sorts of "creative works" which are not available through the Apple App Store thanks to their draconian policies:

• QuickGold - "QuickSilver for the iPhone" provides a unified search of everything on your phone. Not allowed because it accesses data Apple doesn't think is kosher for 3rd party apps.
• Qik - Live video streaming to the Internet via your phone. Apple doesn't think this is kosher because it will not allow any video recording apps through the app store. Why? Got me. Apple sucks.
• iShuffle - Intelligent shuffle for the iPod mode of your phone. Looks at what songs you're skipping and what ones you're listening to and tries to use your history of skipped/listened to songs to figure out what you're in the mood for. Banned by Apple because it interfaces with the iPod functionality.
• MobileTerminal - Terminal for iPhone. Banned by Apple because OMFG that gives the user too much power!
• SSH - Shell into your phone, or copy songs, photos, ringtones, or other files to/from your phone over WiFi. Banned by Apple for several reasons, first because it's a background application and We Can't Have Those!
• *IX environment - iPhones run OS X, and the iPhone mod community has ported tons of tools to the iPhone (including Metasploit). Apple doesn't want people to think of the iPhone as a Unix workstation in your pocket, even though the thing basically runs NeXTSTEP.

Meanwhile, I have had zero problems with any of the other functions of my phone. Apple wants me to trade all of ^^^ for, what exactly? How do Apple's policies make for a better platform for "creation and distribution of creative works for the platform" exactly?

[FarmerPete]

Re: EFF defends the right to jailbreak iPhones

I'm not saying that Apple is right for banning the software they have banned, but if what you are doing is as described to jailbreak a phone, (taking the iPhone source, running it through something that modifies it, and then putting it on your phone), it is very easy for me to see how that breaks the law. If someone made an OS from scratch to replace the apple OS, that would be a totally different thing. If it doesn't currently break the law, I'm sure Apple or AT&T will add some TOS additions for future iPhone purchases. Either way, if they don't want you to do it, it will be illegal for you to do it eventually.

[bascule]

Re: EFF defends the right to jailbreak iPhones

I'm not saying that Apple is right for banning the software they have banned, but if what you are doing is as described to jailbreak a phone, (taking the iPhone source, running it through something that modifies it, and then putting it on your phone), it is very easy for me to see how that breaks the law.

How exactly does that break the law? I can't make changes to the software on my phone? Is it Apple's phone, not mine, and I'm just leasing it?

[vadubgeek]

Re: EFF defends the right to jailbreak iPhones

How exactly does that break the law? I can't make changes to the software on my phone? Is it Apple's phone, not mine, and I'm just leasing it?

The phone is yours but the software is licensed. It's not your code to modify. At least that's the argument behind copyright protections.

[bascule]

Re: EFF defends the right to jailbreak iPhones

The phone is yours but the software is licensed. It's not your code to modify. At least that's the argument behind copyright protections.

Why doesn't that argument apply to iTunes taking music that's not mine but licensed to me and providing easy tools for burning mix CDs with it?

[theprez98]

Re: EFF defends the right to jailbreak iPhones

Why doesn't that argument apply to iTunes taking music that's not mine but licensed to me and providing easy tools for burning mix CDs with it?

Because you're using logic, of course!

[LosT]

Re: EFF defends the right to jailbreak iPhones

Prez, you went back to your room to get on the forums!?!?!? Get down to the second floor, we are watching movies.

LosT

[vadubgeek]

Re: EFF defends the right to jailbreak iPhones

Why doesn't that argument apply to iTunes taking music that's not mine but licensed to me and providing easy tools for burning mix CDs with it?

I'm guessing because they don't provide you tools to alter the music itself. If you're equating a song to a program, then they would have to provide a tool for you to change the beat or insert samples from one song into another for your analogy to work.

[bascule]

Re: EFF defends the right to jailbreak iPhones

I'm guessing because they don't provide you tools to alter the music itself.

So operating systems are in their final, unalterable form but music albums are not?

If you're equating a song to a program...

Actually I was equating the IPSW filesystem image to an album...

then they would have to provide a tool for you to change the beat or insert samples from one song into another for your analogy to work.

Are you saying it's illegal for me to alter individual songs for personal use?

I can't open Blue Oyster Cult's Don't Fear the Reaper and add MORE COWBELL to improve my own personal enjoyment?

If MORE COWBELL is wrong, I don't know what's right

[TheCotMan]

Re: EFF defends the right to jailbreak iPhones

So operating systems are in their final, unalterable form but music albums are not?

Fundamentally, isn't this less an issue of copyright, and more an issue of licensing?

Additionally, software instructions and code have qualified as IP (Intellectual Property) for a while now, with different laws from copyright where patents exist.

Closed systems, and "turn-key solutions" do exist as black boxes, with licensing restrictions to access.

If copying songs is not an issue of licensing, then is the comparison of iTunes really analogous?

You are a programmer. We recognize that "all code is data" (when stored) and to specify any data as something more than simple data (or even type of data) a context is required. However, we do recognize that *instructions* are different from *data* when programming.

When simple data is replicated, even if it is converted to another format (simple sense: vinyl to cassette, or complex: vinyl to compressed ogg or mp3) the primary laws considered are covered under Copyright laws, and a mountain of case-law that interprets how Copyright can be applied, and what exceptions exist for "fair use."

When examining *firmware* you are examining data, but a special kind of data: instructions. A sequence of instruction that does something "new" can be patented, and can then be covered under more restrictive IP laws. When firmware is altered, a competing product emerges, which is based on the original, but is new. This is where licensing becomes an issue. This is where violation in IP law becomes an issue.

Actually I was equating the IPSW filesystem image to an album...

Are you saying it's illegal for me to alter individual songs for personal use?

I can't open Blue Oyster Cult's Don't Fear the Reaper and add MORE COWBELL to improve my own personal enjoyment?

If MORE COWBELL is wrong, I don't know what's right

Actually, this kind of thing is covered under copyright law, and derivative works. Isn't this also covered in case law on how much sampling can exist of older songs for inclusion into new songs.

Now for a side-note on Apple products:
Apple products often encourage sheeple-conformity. Uniqueness through modification is discouraged. Apple does encourge people to, "think different," so long as it is not, "too different," and of course means switching to their products. This is not a BadThing(tm) for people that are happy with such products as-is, but it is not for everyone.

With decades of Apple history which includes clone-stomping in the Apple ][ days, re-possession of the Newton, then a sell-off, The late-90's licensing to clones, only to change the rules and pull the carpet out from under the clone hardware manufacturers, their restrictive EULA for hardware support under warranty to only be valid with Genuine Apple Parts and sometimes only when added by certified Apple repair technicians and more.... with all of this, is the position Apple has taken on altering their iPhone really any kind of surprise? It seems like people didn't know what they were buying when they bought an Apple product and then complain about how Apple is too strict with their licensing, and on how their product can be used.

I'm not saying Apple sucks. I'm glad they are able to stay in business, sell a product, and keep people employed. However, I do wonder how people can be surprised when a corporation does something that attempts to earn them more money-- that is their "job."

[theprez98]

Re: EFF defends the right to jailbreak iPhones

Prez, you went back to your room to get on the forums!?!?!? Get down to the second floor, we are watching movies.

LosT

So did you.

[bascule]

Re: EFF defends the right to jailbreak iPhones

Fundamentally, isn't this less an issue of copyright, and more an issue of licensing?

No, actually. If it were just an issue of violating Apple's licensing it'd be merely a civil affair. However, Apple is insisting that jailbreaking an iPhone is a criminal affair because jailbreaking represents a DMCA violation.

Apparently they're insisting the cryptographic checks iTunes would normally perform on IPSW are a technological measure primarily intended to protect their copyright and the copyrights of musicians and independent software developers. Furthermore, they would have to insist that tools like PwnageTool and QuickPwn are both primarily intended and marketed for the purposes of circumventing Apple's supposed copyright enforcement technologies.