Jailbreaking now illegal for Tablets and E-Book Readers

[Nexutix]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...t-not-tablets/

What about tablets? No dice. The Librarian "found significant merit to the opposition’s concerns that this aspect of the proposed class was broad and ill-defined ... For example, an e-book reading device might be considered a 'tablet,' as might a handheld video game device or a laptop computer."

Why the change? The Librarian cited two key factors. One is a 2010 ruling that held that when you purchase software, you don't actually own it. Rather, you merely license it according to the terms of the End User License Agreement. The Librarian argued that this undermined the claim that unlocking your own phone was fair use.

For devices bought after January 2013: This means one can no more jailbreak their Kindle or iPad legally.

[SeaKing]

Oh wow. this will cause some controversy.

It seems that we could just throw away that "software" we bought, and install our own.
So there!

The device, I assume is ours just like the cow grazing in our back yard that we bought at auction.

[Quexos]

Nothing is ours if we let corporations have it their way. That's what most people don't realize. Which is what makes piracy a good slap in their face and some taking back of our freedom. But so many don't get that and willingly go to the slaughterhouse and even defend the system and criticize piracy with all their might.
Luckily for Amazon, a Kindle device cannot be "downloaded illegally" so if they decided jail-breaking is illegal then that's exactly how it will be. We just have the right to shut up and submit to the system.

Originally Posted by SeaKing

The device, I assume is ours just like the cow grazing in our back yard that we bought at auction.

[Nexutix]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

It seems that we could just throw away that "software" we bought, and install our own.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. iPod touches fall under tablet category! There has been android port for iDevices. But they are inefficient. And iPad 2 and newer are not compatible at all!

But soon, we will see TOS with line along this:

By purchasing this device, you license it from <the company> for unlimited amount of usage.

[RolandD]

Complete nonsense

[wizwor]

The best way to combat this is to heighten public awareness and promote alternatives. IOW, do not buy products which do not specifically grant broad license to the purchaser.

A kind of You Didn't Build That campaign against DCMA -- You Don't Own That.

How big a deal would it be to switch from Nexus, Apple, Amazon to some comparable Chinese manufacturer?

There is a lot of protection -- at least circular illogic -- regarding the ability to extract a digital copy from optical media. Again, use the government's loophole (public libraries) to circumvent this. Instead of buying a DVD, borrow it from a library.

That's the answer -- boycott. Simply do not spend money on products with unfair licenses.

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

Oh wow. this will cause some controversy.

It seems that we could just throw away that "software" we bought, and install our own.
So there!

The device, I assume is ours just like the cow grazing in our back yard that we bought at auction.

Well, but can you be so sure about that cow? Perhaps she has some special Monsanto genes and you are only allowed to use it for milking but not for breeding...

[HansTWN]

So now we know where all the money went that Apple saved when "developing" the iPad Mini. They must have lobbied real hard for this.

[Prestidigitweeze]

It's always good to know the exact names of the enemies of ownership. Apple is one of them, but historically, it isn't alone.

Notice the links in this article and the links within the linked texts.

Story about the original ruling that led to this development

The Opinion itself:

Vernor v. Autodesk

Looks as though Autodesk, the SIIA and the MPAA were the main perps (and the opposition included the American Library Association and eBay):

Timothy Vernor purchased several used copies of Autodesk, Inc.’s AutoCAD Release 14 software (“Release 14”) from one of Autodesk’s direct customers, and he resold
the Release 14 copies on eBay. Vernor brought this [unsuccessful] declaratory judgment action against Autodesk to establish that these resales did not infringe Autodesk’s copyright. . . . Autodesk, the Software & Information Industry Association (“SIIA”), and the Motion Picture Association of America (“MPAA”) have presented policy arguments that favor our result. For instance, Autodesk argues in favor of judicial enforcement of software license agreements that restrict transfers of copies of the work. Autodesk contends that this (1) allows for tiered pricing for different software markets, such as reduced pricing for students or educational institutions; (2) increases software companies’ sales; (3) lowers prices for all consumers by spreading costs among a large number of purchasers; and (4) reduces the incidence of piracy by allowing copyright owners to bring infringement actions against unauthorized resellers. SIIA argues that a license can exist even where a customer (1) receives his copy of the work after making a single payment and (2) can indefinitely possess a software copy, because it is the software code and associated rights that are valuable rather than the inexpensive discs on which the code may be stored. Also, the MPAA argues that a customer’s ability to possess a copyrighted work indefinitely should not compel a finding of a first sale, because there is often no practically feasible way for a consumer to return a copy to the copyright owner. Vernor, eBay, and the American Library Association (“ALA”) have presented policy arguments against our decision.

I had a hunch the MPAA might be involved because of the non-exemption that would prohibit DVD ripping even for the owner's personal use.

[crich70]

I don't see how it could be enforceable myself. I mean take something like a car for example. If you buy it, you own it. And if you decide later to customize it by getting it repainted or changing out the cassette deck/radio for a CD player then that is your right. I think the same should apply to electronics myself. Next they'll be saying linux is an illegal OS because people remove Windows or whatever OS Apple uses and put it on in their place. It all comes to the same thing. An ebook file is intangible in that you can't touch it. There is no physicality to the book itself, but the reader that you read the book on has physicality. You can see and touch the device itself. And what of those people who build their own computers from parts? Are they to be rounded up and charged with a crime for having decided what they want on their computer and what they don't?

[Prestidigitweeze]

The goal might not be permanent restriction but rather practical discouragement. Companies rarely care what happens in the distant future.

If a restriction which asserts non-ownership is imposed on users even temporarily, it can result in potential profits for as long as it stands. By the time it's found to be unenforceable and/or unfair, the people behind it might have made their money and even moved on.

[forsooth]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

So now we know where all the money went that Apple saved when "developing" the iPad Mini. They must have lobbied real hard for this.

Judges are costly especially in the EU. Much white powder. For their wigs.

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by crich70

Next they'll be saying linux is an illegal OS because people remove Windows or whatever OS Apple uses and put it on in their place.

Now there's an idea, said the guy from the Applesoft legal department...

[Prestidigitweeze]

The original case and resulting non-exemptions had nothing to do with Apple.

The parties behind it are Autodesk, the Software & Information Industry Association and the Motion Picture Association of America.

Being on Mobile Read and talking about unfair laws is like being on Head-fi and talking about bad frequency emphasis. The conversation shows signs of spontaneity before someone mentions everyone's least-favorite brands and we go from talking about actual issues to hating the same three companies and stereotyping every user who prefers or bothers to defend them.

The problem is not any one company. It's the corporate world's indiscriminate and ever-mutating acceptance of the idea of intellectual property.

This is an important legal issue which affects every one of us on every platform -- even people who don't actually live in the States, since it will affect publishing restrictions and content distribution.

[doubleshuffle]

If you're referring to my last post - I just tried to coin the rather inelegant term "Applesoft" to refer to both dominating producers of OSs; also not bashig specifically these two, but it's precisely those that make sense in the context of the quote I was replying to.

But I totally agree with you - it affects everybody.