US Copyright Office ruled that jail breaking is FAIR USE.

[snipenekkid]

How did we all miss this ruling in 2010?

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2366993,00.asp

The gist of the article shows that first and foremost Apple thinks they do indeed OWN the iPhone you thought you bought.

Do you want to jailbreak that iPhone 4? Go right ahead, says the Library of Congress.

The Copyright Office within the LOC on Monday ruled that jailbreaking a smartphone – particularly Apple's iPhone – is permissible under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA) fair use provisions.

Jail breaking is "innocuous at worst and beneficial at best," Librarian of Congress James H. Billington wrote in his decision.

By law, Billington is required to review the DMCA every three years to see if there are any emerging technologies that might be exempt from the law's ban on circumventing access to copyrighted material. The Copyright Office asked people to submit their recommendations for what technologies it should consider, and of the 19 submissions, Billington on Monday exempted six.

Second the feel they own the users rights period and could not give a rat's pa-tootie about you the users only their own image. So stoopid people better not use their "licensed" hardware, they stoopidly assumed they were BUYING, devices as they choose.

"Apple's objections relate to its interests as a manufacturer and distributor of a device, the iPhone," the Copyright Office concluded. "The harm that Apple fears is harm to its reputation."

Now feel free to argue the minutiae, you know you want and are going to anyway. Have fun with this news from last year.

[JeremyR]

I wasn't aware that we had missed it.

On the flip side, Sony has been suing the people who hacked (that is, the people who originally figured out how and posted the details) their PS3...one of them who happens to include the guy that jailbroke the iPhone.

[snipenekkid]

I looked but could not find a thread, was there one? I did a fast search so it's possible.

It's a great ruling but clearly based on the language of the agreement itself. I honestly do not see how Apple or any other company can get away with such restrictions. Unless the come out and say you are not buying the hardware then no matter how they word it I don't see how any company can win that battle.

And I sure didn't know Sony was pulling that garbage, or at least trying to. Are they just going after those who are teaching others how to hack the PS# devices?

[Kali Yuga]

This was fairly well publicized at the time, and not especially relevant to ebooks.

[Penforhire]

Jail breaking itself is fair use but Apple still has the right to deny warranty service in the event of a hardware failure they blame on a jailbroken app (not sure if they ever have) and you'll violate other laws if you install 'stolen' apps. Otherwise it was indeed a sweet court decision for us. I'm still hoping it pushes Apple to improve their own notification system.

[Hellmark]

Most people who jailbreak have no problems with voiding their warranty.

[CyGuy]

I find it a bit disturbing that people actually think they need "permission" to jailbreak a device that they own. If you bought it you can jailbreak it, hack it, or smash it with a hammer. What you do with it for personal use is wide open...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Lots of devices have limits to which you can "jailbreak" them, even if you own them. For instance, it is illegal to modify a home radio to broadcast on certain FCC-regulated frequencies. It shouldn't be that surprising that people don't know the extent to which they can modify something they own.

[Penforhire]

True, just as you can't legally monkey with emissions equipment on your car.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Lots of devices have limits to which you can "jailbreak" them, even if you own them. For instance, it is illegal to modify a home radio to broadcast on certain FCC-regulated frequencies. It shouldn't be that surprising that people don't know the extent to which they can modify something they own.

But that wouldn't really be "personal use" since you are broadcasting far and wide.

Originally Posted by Penforhire

True, just as you can't legally monkey with emissions equipment on your car.

You certainly can, for use on private property (off road use only).

[jocampo]

It is legal fry or lock your device! ... you pay for it ... no? ....

As long as you don't download illegal software or bypass a legal buying procedure, or interfering with FCC laws .... the hardware itself is 100% yours.

Of course, claiming warranty because stupidity while doing that, is another thing.

[DMSmillie]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Lots of devices have limits to which you can "jailbreak" them, even if you own them. For instance, it is illegal to modify a home radio to broadcast on certain FCC-regulated frequencies.

Originally Posted by CyGuy

But that wouldn't really be "personal use" since you are broadcasting far and wide.

Indeed. And in this example, I'd assume that it's not so much the act of modifying the radio that's an issue - it's the specific result of said modification, i.e. broadcasting on a restricted frequency.

[snipenekkid]

about the broadcasting thing. Consider this is jail breaking a cell phone, a transmitter on a licensed frequency potentially illegal? Part of me realizes that the device is licensed for that frequency but by altering it has the user somehow violated FCC rules? Just asking because, heck I don't have a clue and the comparison to hack-up a home made xmitter is one thing but where does it stop.

I'm sure most here remember the days when the FCC, with the help of the Dell's, Apple's, Gateway's, HP's and every other major computer maker of the time, tried to shut down anyone who was system building in their small shop or even at home because the FCC did not approve the hardware combo for home use, usually they were fine with as I recall, the systems being OK as Class A (?? is that right??) devices for business/office environments but they would try and shut down a builder selling to home users. To be honest I don't know what the regs are today but the conventional wisdom back then was if the case was OK for Class B with one set of components then it would easily pass no matter what.

Is the FCC still doing this or have they found easier prey?

[markbot]

Just because you are allowed to jail break doesn't mean you are allowed to circumvent DRM though.

[jlmwrite]

Originally Posted by markbot

Just because you are allowed to jail break doesn't mean you are allowed to circumvent DRM though.

Actually it does, albeit under very limited circumstances. Something about if an ebook doesn't have text-to-speech features enabled, you can bypass the DRM.