Originally Posted by wizwor
Unless it's a tablet -- whatever that is. I think this could go either way. A could could say the LoC did not define a tablet, there no laws apply, or the court could apply its own definition -- which could be very broad -- and prosecute jailbreaking.
Reading the document, one of the things that struck me is that the people who didn't want the exception (the rights holders, I assume) argued that an exception wasn't needed
because it was already covered under the previous exception. Do you think that argument has legs?