Jailbreaking now illegal for Tablets and E-Book Readers

[shenye]

Isn't it the purpose of GPL to enable the user to exercise his freedoms, specifically, the freedom to make modified versions of a program? If the user is not given a way to install his own (modified) versions of the program, or if he is no longer allowed to (!), he has no way of exercising his freedom to run modified versions of the program.

Deeming jailbreaking/rooting illegal (unless it is done with permission from the vendor) kinda makes the whole thing incompatible with GPL if you ask me.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by shenye

Isn't it the purpose of GPL to enable the user to exercise his freedoms, specifically, the freedom to make modified versions of a program? If the user is not given a way to install his own (modified) versions of the program, or if he is no longer allowed to (!), he has no way of exercising his freedom to run modified versions of the program.

Deeming jailbreaking/rooting illegal (unless it is done with permission from the vendor) kinda makes the whole thing incompatible with GPL if you ask me.

Yeah. That's kind of what I was thinking. I don't know how you could have such a rule with GPL'd software. qlob pointed out that the Kindle Fire software isn't all open sourced, but I thought the only closed source thing was the launcher.

I guess another big question would be, would Amazon go hard on this rule? They didn't seem to care about rooting before the Librarian made the first ruling about jailbreaking, so I'm wondering if it would matter now.

[cfrizz]

They can make all the rules like this that they want, the plain simple matter is that all of them are unenforceble. So don't get upset or worry about it, just do what you want with YOUR personal bought and OWNED gear/ebooks/music.

[wizwor]

Originally Posted by cvkemp

You need to read this the US copyright office says that if you buy it you own it and should have the right to do what you wish.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10...ma_exemptions/

Unless it's a tablet -- whatever that is. I think this could go either way. A court could say the LoC did not define a tablet, therefore no laws apply, or the court could apply its own definition -- which could be very broad -- and prosecute jailbreaking.

[bhartman36]

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?

[Quexos]

You are morally right, but they are legally right I'm afraid. That's how the system is. In any case I hope citizens can now tell the difference between legal and moral.

Originally Posted by cfrizz

They can make all the rules like this that they want, the plain simple matter is that all of them are unenforceble. So don't get upset or worry about it, just do what you want with YOUR personal bought and OWNED gear/ebooks/music.

[Binko]

A ruling like this really drives home the degree to which government officials who should be working for the public good are really just part of the corporate power structure.

[rdfry]

All I got to say is this is just bullsh*t.

[wizwor]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

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?

I would say no. Otherwise they would simply take someone to court. They are looking for less ambiguity. Remember that these rules only apply for three years. I'll have all my DVDs converted by 12/31 and won't buy more until they reinstate the exception for personal use. that's my statement.

[Kevin8or]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

They can make all the rules like this that they want, the plain simple matter is that all of them are unenforceble. So don't get upset or worry about it, just do what you want with YOUR personal bought and OWNED gear/ebooks/music.

(Generally) unenforceable laws are still a problem because they enable selective enforcement. Selective enforcement is an excellent tool of control.

Let's say almost everyone is guilty of violating some dozen (often obscure) laws/codes/rules that can't be uniformly enforced. Let's say I'm a prosecutor or corporate giant or the MPAA. You piss me off for some reason. It may be unrelated to the laws. I'll choose to prosecute or sue you even though I don't have the resources to sue everyone.

Those laws are useful little tools for destroying meddlesome opponents and for producing a chilling effect on the rest. Yeah, these rules matter.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by Quexos

You are morally right, but they are legally right I'm afraid. That's how the system is. In any case I hope citizens can now tell the difference between legal and moral.

Originally Posted by Kevin8or

(Generally) unenforceable laws are still a problem because they enable selective enforcement. Selective enforcement is an excellent tool of control.

Let's say almost everyone is guilty of violating some dozen (often obscure) laws/codes/rules that can't be uniformly enforced. Let's say I'm a prosecutor or corporate giant or the MPAA. You piss me off for some reason. It may be unrelated to the laws. I'll choose to prosecute or sue you even though I don't have the resources to sue everyone.

Those laws are useful little tools for destroying meddlesome opponents and for producing a chilling effect on the rest. Yeah, these rules matter.

While both of you are correct, unless someone is stupid enough to flagrantly break the rules and boast about it, the odds of getting busted are very slim.

For the most part what someone does in the privacy of their home is between them and whatever diety they believe in.

Most of the "public" cases we have heard about could have been prevented had they used an ounce of common sense, and the rest was simple greed and flaunting it. They deserve whatever they get.

[doubleshuffle]

Probably. One should indeed expect the diety to punish greed.



(Sorry. Had to.)

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

While both of you are correct, unless someone is stupid enough to flagrantly break the rules and boast about it, the odds of getting busted are very slim.

People boast about it all the time on this board, and their odds of getting caught are still, historically, zero.

Originally Posted by Kevin8or

(Generally) unenforceable laws are still a problem because they enable selective enforcement. Selective enforcement is an excellent tool of control.

My first thought was that selective enforcement stinks as a tool of control. However, on second thought, people who read a lot of books may be more risk-adverse than the general population. There's only one way to know -- putting a few middle class readers in the slammer -- and I'm not advocating it.

[Dylan Tomorrow]

That decision is utter bullshit.

I hope mobilereads takes a stance here and continues to host the rooting/jailbreaking subforums. Move the servers, if necessary.

[Dylan Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by Katie1

The name JAILBREAKING should give folks an idea that it IS ILLEGAL!

I wish the goverment would work on removing Porn & How to Make a Bomb web sites & books than to worry IF some one it changing software on an ereader... Cause really which is more dangerous

None of these things would make the world a safer or better place. Removing adult porn in particular is one of the most futile, stupid and nonsensical things to try for any government.

Sexuality is a central aspect of the human condition, censoring it has never and will never change that fundamental fact in the slightest.